Category Archives: SoCap2008

SoCap 2008: Securitizing Philanthropy

There is an irony in the fact that so much of the conversation at the SoCap conference is about moving philanthropy towards a financial markets approach that seems to be in the process of breaking down in the for-profit financial markets. However, we should not confuse financial innovation with excessive risk taking.

I just read the great book When Markets Collide. Published this year, the book comments on events that were occurring in the financial market as recently as the spring of this year. Author Mohamed El-Erian is the former head of  the Harvard endowment and current co-CEO of PIMCO, one of the largest investment managment companies in the world (he also spent 15 years at the International Monetary Fund). In the book, El-Erian says that when asked what career he would suggest a young women go into he replies “structured finance” without hesitation. His point is that while we are in a cyclical move away from structured finance due to excessive risk taking, the stuctured finance movement will continue to dominate financial markets over the long term.

All of this brings me to a great session I attended yesterday in which my friend George Overholser of NFF Capital Partners described how grantmakers can injected capital into a nonprofit debt financing deal to make it more attractive to for-profit lenders. The idea is that if a profit seeking lender will only lend to a nonprofit at a 10% interest rate, they may be willing to lend at a lower rate if a philanthropist puts up capital that will act as a “first loss” cushion. Let’s say that for example the loan is for $5 million. The philanthropist might put up $500,000 that the lender could lay claim to if the nonprofit was unable to fully repay the loan. This reduces the risk to the lender and therefore lowers the interest they are willing to accept to complete the loan. The philanthropist is willing to put up the money because the injection of a relatively small cash cushion can unleash much larger new cash flows into the nonprofit system. While the provider of the “first loss” cushion can acheive a maximum financial return of 0% (just getting all their money back if the nonprofit doesn’t default on the loan) and a maximum loss of 100%, this actually compares favorably to the guarenteed 100% “loss” that occurs when you make a grant. While a first loss capital cushion is not superior to making a grant, it is another tool to be considered by high-impact grantmakers.

This brings me to a recent announcement by Schwab Charitable (the national donor advised fund) of its pioneering program to allow their donor advised funds to put up capital to guarantee microfinance loans. The program is being run in collaboration with the Grameen Foundation. According to the press release:

“We are excited to be partnering with Schwab Charitable to expand the reach of microfinance loan programs around the world,” said Alex Counts, President of Grameen Foundation. “Historically, guarantee programs have only been open to large foundations or to the very wealthy. This program opens up participation to a much broader range of donors, democratizing access and building a solid base of ongoing support.”

…Donors who agree to participate will recommend that up to 10 percent of their Charitable Gift Accounts be set aside for a period of 24-36 months to help guarantee microfinance loans. Any funds used to guarantee microloans will stay in their accounts, will continue to be invested for the entire period and will be applied to the guarantee only if the microfinance program has losses in excess of reserves. In addition, Schwab Charitable will report back to participating donors on the social and economic impact that these microfinance loans provide to their various recipients.

Like all tools, structured finance can be used in inappropriate ways. As El-Erian points out in his book, the “securitization” of home loans (pooling them and reselling the loans to investors) was a positive development. However, misaligned incentives encouraged excessive risk taking that is now coming back to haunt the mortgage markets. Structured finance is a powerful tool and powerful tools can be dangerous, but I think the development of social capital markets towards more sophisticated forms of structured finance is inevitable. Let’s work on getting it right.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

SoCap 2008: Breaking Silos in Philanthropy

At SoCap today, I had to decide between a session titled Breaking Silos and one called Capital Cohabitation that was described as being about “how to break down silos”. Yesterday I published a post about… you guessed it, how important it is that we “break out of our silos”. The SoCap Conference is shockingly cross-disciplinary in the background of the attendees. Sometimes it seems like people are speaking different languages, but I think that’s OK. At least they’re trying to communicate.

Personally I’m focused on the intersection of wealth management and philanthropy. But those are just two of the silos that must be broken down for the social capital markets to thrive. I know that people on the inside of a trend tend to think it is more important than it really is. But I still believe that we are at a true turning point in the development of this field.

On my way over to the session I’m currently in, I heard a woman on a cell phone saying “I can’t believe it, there’s 600 people here and they’re all deeply interested in this stuff. I know they’re not all in our target market, but it is still amazing”.

That’s the thing, when you break down silos, the people on the other side aren’t always “in your target market”, but that’s inevitable when you’re building an entirely new marketplace.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

SoCap 2008: New Wealth Management Panel

I just moderated what ended up being a standing room only session at SoCap 2008. Don’t tell the fire marshal, but the the audience was a exponentially larger than the room posted limit of 49. It was actually rather exciting to see the “demand” side of equation for social investments beyond capacity and to see the “supply” side consisting of panel members from UBS, Merrill Lynch, Guggenheim Partners, Veris Wealth Partners and my own firm Ensemble Capital Management.

Prior to the session I ran into an acquaintence who works for the The Institute for the Future. She was explaining to me that trends take 30-50 years to play out. So the Internet was first developed in the 1960’s, but it took 30 years for the internet to go mainstream and yet we’re still likely 10+ years from the Internet being fully “mature” in its growth cycle. I think the same is true in social investing. The first socially responsible investment fund was launched in the 1970’s, so we’re now 30 years into the trend. I have the sense (and the panel today was a nice affirmation) that we’re hitting the “knee in the curve” of growth in social investing. But that means that if you compared our industries to the growth path of the Internet, we’re probably sitting at around 1995.

The fun thing about the panel was that we didn’t have to explain why social investing was important. The crowd got that. So we got to surface some core disagreements between the panelists. Is there a trade off between social returns and financial returns? Is there enough deal flow for everyone who wants to invest with social impact to be able to find opportunities?

This is going to be a good conference. You can follow along with the blog team via the official SoCap blog.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post