Scaling successful models

Impact’s involvement with education has so far been limited, but some success stories have emerged and these can be scaled using further injections of impact finance. One outstanding example is Bridge International Academies, a for-profit whose standardized “academy-in-a-box” model has been highly successful in delivering quality education to poor communities in Kenya.

To date, Bridge has enrolled 95,216 pupils, and counting, with high rates of attainment when compared to traditional forms of schooling. With continued growth in Kenya and plans to extend its reach to other African countries, Bridge shows that it’s possible to come up with scalable models for education delivery.

Bridge represents a new breed of company taking a new approach to education. Cross-sector collaboration has been part of its fabric from the beginning and continues to be central to its development. The company was founded on the partnership between Jay Kimmelman, the entrepreneur behind successful software company Edusoft, and Shannon May, a development specialist. It was established using capital from a wide range of investors including aid agencies like OPIC and DFID, venture capital investors like LearnCapital and Rethink Education and impact investors like Omidyar Network and CDC.

This co-investment approach shows the range of players in the arena and the potential for fruitful collaboration, a theme evident across the whole education investment sector. By using such techniques, it will be possible to generate the capital necessary to bring other promising models to scale, rolling them out across more regions and adapting them to answer local needs.

Exploring the potential of edtech

Impact investors already love cleantech and greentech, but edtech, the new buzzword for education technology, is still largely unexplored ground for the impact sector.

But what is edtech? Edtech involves using information technology—including tablets, smartphones and computers—and working through various media, including social media, to deliver instruction. Its practice involves enhanced learning through computers as well as remote learning and massive online courses, or MOOCs. “Edtechers” in schools, universities and businesses design and produce online classes, tutorials, training programs and exams and then deliver them to students using technology.

Edtech is widely considered to be the new frontier in global education and the momentum behind it is growing. The UK government, long a leader in the development of socially beneficial areas of enterprise, has established an edtech incubator. Meanwhile, mainstream markets and venture capitalists are beginning to get excited about the potential of edtech, with some pundits making bullish predictions about its future The edtech market is projected to grow to $220 billion by 2017, with the US market growing by 47 percent and the EMEA countries (Europe, Middle East and Africa) projected growth standing at around 25 percent.

For impact investors, the rise of edtech, with its potential for delivering returns at both market and below-market rates as well as non-financial benefits, represents another possible entry point into the education marketplace. Education, like clean water, is popularly considered to be a good thing per se and this makes edtech an uncontroversial investment, which in turn should make it attractive to a number of different kinds of socially motivated investors. It’s no coincidence that Bridge founder Jay Kimmelmann was an edtech entrepreneur before he became CEO of Bridge International Academies, a mission-driven education delivery business.

This crossover is important when it comes to financial arrangements, too. Two of Bridge Academies’ major investors,  LearnCapital and Rethink Education are venture capital funds that focus on edtech investing. In another example of collaborative investing, last year they joined forces with the NewSchools Venture Fund, a venture philanthropy organization, to capitalize Britebytes, a platform that helps educators manage their learning technology.
While none of the three organizations in this deal call themselves impact investors, all are pursuing investment strategies that blend business and social benefit through investing in education.

This deal gives us a glimpse of the investing landscape that surrounds edtech. It’s one that draws investors equally from mainstream finance, philanthropy and government, creating a potentially dynamic market for developing education solutions. Impact investors should take note, since the chances are good that more of these collaborative deals will be coming their way in the near future. By being prepared to work with a range of different co-investors with a range of motives and a variety of appetites for both reward and risk, impact investors can play their part in a growing marketplace.

Getting deeper into student finance

Demand for student finance is exploding in developing countries with growing middle classes and increased demand for higher education, such as Vietnam, South Africa, Brazil, Morocco, and India.

At the same time, in the developed world costs for higher education continue to rise uncontrollably in the face of government cutbacks, leading some students to take on unsustainable levels of debt while others have been priced out of the education market altogether. Default rates for student loans, already high, are rising and despite a growth in student numbers the gap between educational attainment rates for rich versus poor students is widening, notably in the US. At the same time, the value of a degree in real terms has never been higher and the demand for highly skilled workers, driven by the growth in technology businesses, is rising, a trend described in a recent book by Harvard economists Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz: “The Race Between Education and Technology”.

For all these reasons, student finance is now being hailed as the “new frontier in impact investing.” It makes sense: impact investing has a track record of success both in providing finance directly and backing institutions who do. Recent studies show there are already some workable models being used by non-banking financial institutions (NBFIs) in the developing world some of which are backed by impact investors: South Africa’s Eduloan and Trustco Finance in Namibia, for instance are using methods including social bonds to raise money to loan to students. Other groups are collaborating with universities or governments, negotiating terms, such as discounts and subsidies, that make the programs more sustainable and secure profits for investors. Still others provide finance directly to educational institutions. There is scope for expanding some of the more successful models globally.

In the developed world, there’s also room for growth. Despite the presence of mainstream lenders, solutions are needed in higher education finance, especially for poorer students. As the cost of higher education continues to rise above the rate of inflation, there are calls for new approaches including using privately-financed Social Impact Bonds, which would raise capital for student loans with repayment tied to performance, and Income Share Agreements (ISAs). In an ISA scheme investors pay the cost of college attendance in return for a percentage of the student’s income after graduation. Higher-earning students pay more, but those who earn less pay less to investors.

These are just some ideas for how impact capital could support access to education for all students. With luck there should be many more such innovative approaches mooted in the years to come—and many opportunities for impact investors to get behind the wave of change. As the demand for global education continues to increase and the urgency of the funding crisis becomes more acute, governments, philanthropies, international aid agencies and the public will ramp up the search for solutions. And, in a new era of openness to market-based approaches, impact investors should be ready to do their part.

By establishing a focus on education as an investable sector—and learning how to work collaboratively with a range of other investors—impact investors can help turn the tide in the global education crisis through supporting sustainable, business-based solutions.

Marta Maretich, Chief Editor, MaxImpact

However, if your focus is emerging markets enterprises that can have an impact on people living in poverty, a recent blog by Ceniarth Capital said it best: “Those of us actively allocating capital to fragile enterprises in developing markets recognize that those people who promise comfortable market rate returns while solving global poverty are the equivalent of diet gurus promising that one can lose weight while eating limitless amounts of chocolate cake.”

In a report launched by Oxfam and Sumerian Partners today, we argue that it’s time to look at impact investing differently; to start with a focus on the needs of the businesses working to make a meaningful impact on poverty reduction, rather than on the investors who stand to benefit from their work. Enterprises working in this space are in new territory – continually adapting their business models, earning low and slow returns and operating in markets that are subject to considerable exogenous shocks (e.g., economic instability, weak infrastructure, extreme weather events and poorly developed value chains). These firms will make decisions that can seem irrational if your focus is market return. They may seek out “at risk” populations, such as single moms balancing the demands of work and family, as employees. They may share ownership and decision-making with their workers. They may pay their suppliers not the price that is commonly expected in the market, but a higher price the firm sees as “fair.” The businesses themselves, and the funds that put their money into these firms, organize around the intention to generate a measurable, beneficial social or environmental impact alongside a financial return – and that prioritization is reflected in their structures, processes and activities.

However, to meet the return expectations that have been established by the sector’s push toward the larger mainstream market, we increasingly see conventional emerging markets investments being reclassified as “impact investing.” Arguably, it’s this trend that has transformed TPG’s investment in Apollo Tower, a cellphone tower company in Myanmar, from a standard emerging market foreign direct investment into an impact investment. The impact statement claimed by supporters is that cellphone access has “helped to increase transparency in a country known for tight control of its information, helping the nation take steps toward democracy.” Hmmm. Really? A cell phone company is actually a democracy and governance project in disguise? Seems a bit of a stretch.

As we write in our report, it should not be assumed that an investment in a cell tower, or a wind farm, or any other enterprise in the global south, is inherently socially positive. Rather, it should be incumbent upon the fund to demonstrate how these enterprises are intentionally structured to optimize impact and benefit poor and marginalized groups – rather than only providing implied, incidental or indirect benefits. They should be able to show what difference the fund’s provision of capital and support and engagement has made. Any self-identifying impact investor should be able to demonstrate a clear intentionality to achieve impact.

Furthermore, the research that has set the prevailing “have your cake and eat it too”-sized return expectations has its limitations. Take, for example, the very same GIIN/Cambridge associates “benchmark” report, which included no commentary on the associated impacts achieved and instead used a self-reported intention to generate social impact as the only impact-related criteria for inclusion in the benchmark. The data included a high proportion of funds focused on the theme of financial inclusion, an industry that has depended on decades of subsidies. Finally, the “benchmark” setting was drawn from a small pool of funds, all of which were targeting market rate returns.

Why does any of this matter anyway? Big tent, right? It matters because the rush to the mainstream can pull impact investing away from its original intent and undermine the meaningful role it can and should play in poverty reduction. It matters because high-profile investments such as Apollo Towers shift the goal posts for everyone. It makes philanthropists doing the critical work of providing smart subsidy to funds and enterprises operating in the toughest places ask, as they have of Root Capital, “Am I the dumbest money in the room?” – If everyone else is making tons of money, am I a sucker if I’m giving it away? And it can divert social entrepreneurs from their mission when they are challenged with the trade-off between purpose and profit. As one social entrepreneur told me recently, “Do we really need this money? Is it going to disorganize us from our original idea? The motivating factor will be to meet the profit targets, not looking at the social part. … Maybe the pressure we will feel from the investors will move us to abandon our women’s empowerment mission. We don’t want that to happen.”

We propose six recommendations that we think can provide a more balanced understanding of what is possible in impact investing, letting the sector begin to use money more creatively:

1. We call for a shift of approach in the market; from one in which we tailor funds around the needs of investors to one focused on developing products that serve the needs of enterprises seeking to combat poverty. Specifically, we need wider adoption of alternative fund structures – such as permanent capital vehicles and evergreen funds – and new financial tools that reflect the predominantly “low and slow returns” of most enterprises prioritizing social impact.
2. The sector needs greater transparency around reporting both the impact and financial returns(gross and net) achieved by impact investors.
3. Donors and philanthropists need to deploy smart subsidy and patient capital (return of capital, rather than return on capital) to support enterprises capable of making a meaningful contribution to poverty reduction, and to support hybrid financing models alongside impact investors seeking a net return on capital. Grants, philanthropy and smart subsidy should be seen as part of the impact investing continuum, not its enemy.
4. The industry needs more independent research to understand the enterprise-level experience, and to analyze which structures, approaches and incentives best help businesses to maintain an intentionality to optimize impact.
5. We call on impact investors to agree to a voluntary code of practice that enshrines the intentionality to behave and take decisions in ways that have a primary focus on achieving impact.
6. Impact investors should adopt incentives for optimizing, measuring and reporting impact as well as achieving financial return targets.

We have no problem with financial returns, but let’s not pretend that investors seeking a pure market return can tackle the most complex global challenges in high-risk markets. They cannot. Not in education. Not in health. Not in reducing child labor and forced marriage. Not in water and sanitation. Not even in banking for small enterprises, which continue to be significantly underserved today by markets everywhere, despite SMEs being the biggest generators of jobs and incomes globally. One just needs to look at the history of Silicon Valley or the microfinance industry ­– both completely commercial today – to justify smart subsidy and venture philanthropy. Our memories are simply too short. It’s not about distorting the market – often, there is not much there to distort – it is about catalyzing it.

By Mara Bolis, Oxfam

FinComEco, a fully integrated Financial & Commodities Ecosystem launches today providing services, financing, capacity building and enablement solutions.   The ecosystem will drive improvements in food security, economic diversity and financial inclusion through a socially responsible commercial delivery partnership. The goal is a sustainable and increasing improvement in the sophistication and living standards of smallholder farmers and their families in developing countries brought about by a venture, which links agriculture to the latest financial technology. It will initially focus on Africa.

“Creating markets, developing infrastructure and providing financing for farmers are key ingredients for transforming agriculture in Africa. These factors were necessary for transforming agriculture into a wealth-creating sector, generating income opportunities for farmers in rural areas .” – The African Development Bank (Note1)

Rt. Hon Mark Simmonds, Chairman of FinComEco, former UK Foreign & Commonwealth office Minister with responsibilities for Africa, the Caribbean, UK Overseas Territories, International Energy and Conflict Prevention, comments, “It is important to recognise each African country is unique with individual economic, political and social drivers.” He added “With FinComEco I believe we have a detailed strategy to support, improve and facilitate the full agricultural value chain improving lives, creating jobs and alleviating poverty.”

FinComEco will encourage growth by connecting the farmer with the exchange, financial infrastructure and national economy. This supply to demand chain also includes small-scale traders, brokers, storage, transportation, shipping, banks and buyers including multinationals. This will enable smallholder farmers to get a better price for their produce, and provide opportunities for further income growth, opening alternative added-value opportunities including e-commerce enabled enterprise.

FinComEco has already successfully proven this concept in Malawi at the Agricultural Commodity Exchange for Africa (ACE) through the GMEX Group. During 2016 substantial benefits were delivered to smallholder farmers with an average 31% increase in income from use of warehouse receipts and better price transparency with 47,000 registered to receive the latest market prices on their mobile phones.

FinComEco will either establish or reinvigorate local commodity exchanges underpinned by trading technology, electronic warehouse receipts and a complete mobile banking solution. It will also enable trade across multiple regions and deliver a holistic secure cloud-enabled financial agri-ecosystem in partnership with development organisations, governments, research bodies and the private sector.

Hirander Misra, Founder and Deputy Chairman of FinComEco and CEO of GMEX Group commented, “The aim of FinComEco is to match exchange trading capability, including derivatives, to physical growers. Also to add value through enabling manufacturing, support services and delivery contributing to additional local employment.” He added, “The initiative will allow smallholder farmers to thrive, enabled by best of breed technology, standards and inputs (including seeds, fertilisers and pesticides). This is coupled with a unique Agri-finance business model to solve credit and financing issues underpinned by improvements in logistics and warehousing.”

Steve Round, Director of FinComEco, CEO at Saescada and Chair at The Big Issue Foundation and Ecology Building Society commented, “There are massive financial inclusion and food security issues across the developing world with not enough being done in a cohesive fashion to address some of them,” he added, “I am delighted that our mobile electronic banking and payments system can add real value, in this unique integrated solution, to many millions of farmers delivering against many of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

FinComEco is currently being syndicated out to strategic investors. Additional announcements on this and further Board and Management appointments will be made in due course.

1. Trust: Rentier economics in our countries is well-documented and as such, investors are likely to touch down in Accra and drive to the project site accompanied by concerns about self-interested officialdom. However, local stakeholders will often have a similarly low opinion of the ‘outsiders’ – informed by their experience of programmes or investments quoted in the millions, high living standards of expatriate staff and the slow pace of progress. ‘Out of the total committed, more is going to personnel pretending to work than anything else’ is a typical refrain. The result is a ‘them and us’ culture which, if not addressed properly, can harm the quality of communication, warp relations and working practices.
2. Expectations: And yet, and yet. Prevailing incentives in major impact-oriented sectors such as agriculture, healthcare and social housing can be an impediment to productivity. For example, as stated by a policy adviser at a recent Savannah Development Authority (SADA) dialogue, business pipelines are distorted by government waivers. There can also be an expectation of ‘handouts’, which, if denied, might create a constituency that will work to frustrate the proposed intervention or at the very least, not assist.
3. Disjointed Strategies: There is no shortage of individuals launching businesses in Ghana with an implicit and real commitment to creating social goods such as healthcare or jobs for communities that need them. They are motivated by profit certainly but alongside that are goals for society at large. However, at times, fear of alienating categories of investor or customer will create distortions or contradictions in business plans or marketing strategies.
4. How to Say No: Generally-speaking, there is an aversion in our community to delivering the word, ‘no’. Points one, two and three above notwithstanding, local partners are often reluctant to display their disagreement directly. With everyone bending over backward to be polite, clients may miss opportunities to get on the same page as their stakeholders. Instead, things just will not happen as expected or seemingly agreed.

In this context, it is important that clients prioritise culture and that they adopt a listening posture concerning internal and external stakeholders. Learning how others have made it work, or failed, taking time to build trust and understand the terrain – in other words ‘local intelligence’ – are equally key. Finally, in deciding how to engage, bear a Songhai maxim in mind, ‘you will spend money or you will spend time’. In setting strategy, it is safer to keep that expectation in mind than to seek short-cuts to making a profit and doing good.

By Songhai Managing Partner Nana Adu Ampofo (London) and Lord-Gustav Togobo Director of Healthcare and Social Impact (Accra)

“A lawyer sponsored us,” Yohannes says, through a refugee resettlement program of the Third Presbyterian Church in Rochester. Yohannes’ father, whose vision is mostly impaired due to stepping on a land mine in 1978, is now a board member of the church. “Being able to come to America and start over on humble beginnings even after stepping on a land mine is one of the reasons why our founders fought bloody battles,” Johannes adds.

His father now works in a probation office, managing cases involving domestic violence. His mother recently retired from a career in nursing. Yohannes went to law school in Buffalo, and clerked for a judge in Western New York. But thanks to another fortunate connection to a mentor in Washington, D.C., he got into the world of finance. “Finance was never in my language. My DNA is fighting for those who are in need and I got that from my father,” Yohannes says. Now, he can’t imagine himself in another industry.

President Barack Obama announced a new federal $1 billion fund for impact investing in 2011, and he eventually called upon Yohannes to finalize its design and make the program permanent. “This program makes sense to me because it fits my theme in life — make a dollar as well as create positive results for our country,” says Yohannes, whom the president officially appointed to serve as senior adviser to the chief investment and innovation officer at the Small Business Administration (SBA).

The specific goal of the $1 billion is to support small business investment strategies that maximize financial return while also yielding measurable social, environmental or economic impact. The program is housed under the SBA’s Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) licensing program. Under the impact investment program, SBIC-licensed funds promise to invest in small businesses in federal priority sectors and underserved communities, while at the same time contributing to the growth and development of the impact investment industry.

One possible example: using some of that $1 billion to invest in a small real estate developer that is also utilizing new markets tax credit financing for a project to create jobs in a low-income neighborhood.

The standard SBIC license has been a sweet deal for many venture capital or private equity funds. Under the program, for every dollar in capital they raise, the SBA matches up to 2-1, up to a maximum of $150 million. Fund management firms then go out with that federally supersized pool of capital and make investments in small businesses. The fund management firm eventually pays back the SBA, with interest. SBA operations require zero taxpayer dollars, instead funding operations through interest earned on its various investments such as SBIC-licensed funds.

The SBIC licensing program was born when President Dwight Eisenhower signed the Small Business Investment Act, on August 21, 1958 — a date that many would argue is also the birth date of the modern venture capital industry. The program provided the first legal framework as well as financial incentives for people to pool money from strangers for the sole purpose of investing in other strangers — specifically, small business owners. As two legal scholars wrote, in 1959, “Congress has for some time been acutely aware of the difficulties facing small business concerns seeking adequate long term financing for modernization, growth and development. It realized that commercial banks are not able to furnish such long term financing, that public [i.e. stock market] sale of small issues of securities involved prohibitive costs, and that private placements had afforded no general solution to the problem.”

The first SBIC-licensed fund managers were essentially the first modern venture capital firms. “The iconic venture capital firms and private equity funds, generally speaking, have received SBIC dollars or have had a SBIC license,” Yohannes says. “Arguably the most iconic brands have received investments through the SBIC license.” Apple, Intel, FedEx, Costco, Staples, even Build-a-Bear are just a few of the companies over the years that got early stage investment from an SBIC license holder.

While there have been more than 300 SBIC-licensed funds at this point, today they are only a small fraction of the venture capital industry, which has grown to have several well-known shortcomings. Eighty-seven percent of venture-backed startup founders are white; 92 percent are men. More than three-quarters of venture capital ends up in just three states: California, New York and Massachusetts.

In some ways, the SBIC program has already been addressing some of that. From 2011 to 2015, SBIC-licensed funds invested $21 billion in more than 6,400 companies, 20 percent of them located in low- to moderate-income areas. A majority of SBIC-licensed capital went into states other than California, New York or Massachusetts. Part of the impetus for the $1 billion SBIC Impact Investment program is to be more intentional about driving capital to communities that have long been neglected by venture capital and other investment sources.

“Early on it appears that our funds invest more in women and minority-led companies than your standard private equity fund,” says Yohannes. “We’re gonna continue to do that, we’re gonna continue to invest money in the Mississippi Delta, we’re gonna continue to invest money in Detroit, we’re gonna continue to invest money in American small businesses where gaps are the widest.”

So far there are seven impact SBICs. One of them, Bridges Ventures, comes from the U.K. Founded in 2002, Bridges Ventures was created solely for impact investing.

“We have a pretty high bar for impact at Bridges, which is one of the reasons why we felt comfortable committing ourselves to the SBA’s impact bar,” says Brian Trelstad, global partner at Bridges Ventures.

In the U.K., the firm has been active in the pay for performance (or social impact bond) space, for example. They regularly speak about or find other ways to share their evolving approach to impact investing, how to measure it and what are some case studies.

In the U.S., Trelstad says, they are looking at businesses that are located in or serve underserved communities, in the areas of health and wellness, education and skills, or environmentally friendly living.

The SBIC license was an invaluable tool to help them raise capital for the fund. Even conventional SBIC-licensed funds automatically qualify for Community Reinvestment Act credit, providing a strong incentive for banks. “It allowed us to get about $18 million of bank capital,” says Trelstad.

The SBIC impact investment licensing process for Bridges took about a year, but didn’t slow them down from their usual process. “While we were fundraising [from investors] we were also going through the licensing process at the same time,” Trelstad says, adding that one of the advantages of the impact investing program is that they could cut the line in front of others seeking conventional SBIC licenses. The SBA evaluates all SBIC licenses on a rolling basis.

Bridges Ventures has made one investment so far out of its SBIC-licensed fund, in an education company. In addition to businesses creating social impact, they’re looking for a few years of positive cash flow, ideally with $5 million to $10 million in revenue. “We have some flexibility to go earlier, but we’re not going to do a complete startup,” says Trelstad.

While the SBIC Impact Investing program was created as a temporary policy under Obama, Johannes and his team are still working to move it into permanent status. “Our goal is before the end of this year. I can’t say exactly when,” says Yohannes.

By Oscar Perry Abello

This section profiles several sources of potential impact investments suitable for institutional investors. Similar to conventional investment management, these sources include companies (private and public), indices, ETFs, and bonds (or other fixed income instruments). For investors who seek to define what makes an “impact investment,” refer to the Appendix for an explanation of IRIS, a series of metrics that encapsulates many environmental and social themes. It should be noted that the number of new impact investment vehicles continues to grow, and this is by no means an exhaustive catalogue. Whatever the objectives or preferences are, this guide can serve as an introduction to institutional investors who are interested in a broad overview of existing impact investment tools and vehicles.

Companies

Many funds choose to invest in companies individually based on their operations or mission. Some specialized venture capital firms, for example, choose to support only clean technologies. Although this is certainly possible for an institutional investor, investments in larger publicly traded companies may be preferred. Institutional investors can choose companies that value certain ethical guidelines in their business operations or products. To determine whether a company qualifies as an “impact investment,” several frameworks can be used. One popular concept that many companies adopt is “corporate social responsibility,” which is loosely defined as compliance with ethical standards in a business model. CSR frameworks can be used to identify companies or organizations that are ethical or impactful in their business operations. Another more active approach for companies is to make social or environmental impact the core of their mission. It is up to the institutional investor to select companies that best fit their appetite for impact (i.e. in operations or in mission) and preferences (e.g. investment horizon, company performance, and company size).

By Rachel F. Wang, Fellow, Bretton Wood’s Initiative.

Download her report at: https://na-production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Impact-Investing-for-Institutional-Investors.pdf

Tracking social or environmental returns, however, is more difficult. Tools such as B Analytics (profiled in more detail in the Appendix) allow investors to manage their companies based on ratings derived from IRIS or GIIRS. Most of this information is only collected ex post facto and cannot be exhibited in real-time. Furthermore, most of the ratings are based on “scores” given to broader themes within environmental, social, and governance categories. This information is qualitative and therefore difficult to assimilate into economic returns, which are tracked in quantitative financial terms. Quantifying social and environmental returns remains a challenge for investors seeking more specific information on whether their “impact investments” are truly making a difference. One possible solution to this problem is the social return on investment (SROI) concept.

Social Return on Investment Social return on investment (SROI) as a benchmarking tool is unique to impact investing. It can be compared to the price/earnings ratio in terms of its potential for evaluating performance. These metrics are used to measure value creation, and the SROI specifically measures the amount of social impact generated on a specific amount of investment in a particular subject.

SROI is not a new phenomenon in the world of impact investing–there have been discussions on SROI in the 1990s–however, measuring SROI remains tricky. Emerson, Wachowicz, and Chun of the Roberts Economics Development Fund (REDF) concluded that social enterprises create value in a continuum that ranges from economic, to socioeconomic, to social value.45 Economic value is the traditional motive for most enterprises; common measurements include return on investment, price/ earnings ratio, and profit margin. Social value is created when processes and inputs are combined to create improvements in the lives of individuals or society as a whole. Emerson, Wachowicz, and Chun state that this is where most non-profits operate, and it is difficult to measure value in this space since most “products” are qualitative and not reducible to analytical terms.

Socio-economic value, on the other hand, includes economic and social value. An entity creates socio-economic value by generating economic value from its inputs, but also by creating social impact. For example, an initiative that provides job-training programs to unemployed people who currently receive public support would qualify as socio-economic value. This initiative develops professional abilities with the potential result of reducing unemployed workers dependent on government support.46

Socio-economic value can be quantified and calculated as SROI, which in turn can help investors evaluate investments before and after they invest. A study conducted by SVA Consulting in Australia on the impact of SROI and SROI reporting showed that the SROI analysis gave organizations a deeper and more analytical insight into their value creation.47 The study also found that the SROI report helped investors and organizations understand the true costs associated with delivering social impact, resulting in better strategic planning. However, SROI is not without its flaws. The study also noted that there were only two forms of SROI analysis: one that estimates social value creation in the past, and one that projects social value creation in the future. The study proposed a need for a third form – “baseline SROI” – that assesses SROI in the present.48

Despite these considerations, calculating SROI can be a powerful way to track portfolio performance. Guidelines on calculating SROI and isolating social cash flows are available in Emerson, Wachowicz, and Chun’s paper. The SROI Network also offers assistance in calculating SROI, social net present value, and sensitivity analysis.49

Market Performance

It can also be challenging for institutional investors looking to understand and benchmark their performance against the general impact investing market. At the time of this writing, there is still a significant lack of analytical research on the impact investing market. Although there have been numerous developments in qualitative frameworks, there is still a dearth of research on market performance and other retrospective benchmarks. Some of the reasons that contribute to this could be 1) the market is still nascent and time horizons are too short to make significant conclusions, 2) many funds or organizations do not release data on their investing performance to the public, and 3) not all actors in the impact investing market are familiar with investment research or analysis. Despite these challenges, the literature on impact investing is constantly evolving to fill new informational gaps.

Impact Investing Benchmark

The Impact Investing Benchmark (IIB) is the first comprehensive analysis of the financial performance of private equity and venture capital impact investing funds. Although it leaves out institutional investors such as sovereign wealth funds and pension funds, the IIB is still useful for any impact investor. To date, it is the only initiative that is produced similarly to analogous financial performance reports for traditional investment funds. In doing so, the IIB is paving the way for analysis of impact investments as an asset class.

Managed by Cambridge Associates and GIIN, the IIB is comprised of 51 private investment funds that were launched between 1998 and 2010. According to their 2015 inaugural report, the IIB found that these funds performed comparably well, despite the perception that impact investing may generate subpar returns.50 From 1998 to 2004, the IIB funds outperformed similar conventional funds, and over the entire 1998 to 2010 time period, underperformed conventional funds by about 1.5 percent. IIB also showed that funds that raised under $100 million returned a net IRR of 9.5 percent to investors – outperforming similarly sized conventional funds (4.5 percent). As with any other investment strategy, manager selection, due diligence, and risk management are still important factors to achieving high returns. The IIB provides much-needed information on impact investing as its own asset class. Its decision to focus on private investments shows that the impact investing strategy can be viable on a smaller basis as well. For institutional investors, this means that impact investing can be done without usurping many other fund resources.

Literature on Impact Investing Practices

While impact investing is not new, the recent exponential growth in the demand and diversity of this type of investing means that few widely established practices exist. An increasing number of organizations are producing both theoretical and practical advice for crafting a successful impact investment portfolio. For investors looking for qualitative information on how to manage an impact investment portfolio, several entities conduct their own internal surveys of institutional investor practices.

J.P. Morgan and GIIN conduct an annual impact investor survey that includes information on asset allocation and performance, portfolio management, and general perspectives on the impact investing market. Their latest edition, published in 2016, featured answers from 158 impact investors that allocated capital to a wide range of asset classes and industries.51

The Sovereign Investor Institute has also conducted surveys on institutional investors – many of whom are impact investors as well. The Institute’s polling reports feature perspectives on macro risks as well as the percentage of participating institutional investors that promote good governance in their portfolios.52

Other resources include the UK DFID, Rockefeller Foundation, and various academic institutions. For example, Rockefeller Foundation not only publishes articles on their investment performance, but also makes public their list of grantees and investments.

By Rachel F. Wang, Fellow, Bretton Wood’s Initiative.

Download her report at: https://na-production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Impact-Investing-for-Institutional-Investors.pdf

LEARN MORE ABOUT IMPACT PERFORMANCE AT AIILF 2016. Click on Image below to register.

“Add Impact” is the new rallying cry of the Global Impact Investing community, which concluded a two-day plenary meeting of its Steering Group in Lisbon, Portugal on July 8. Championed by Sir Ronald Cohen, founder of Big Society Capital (BSC), which is hailed as the world’s first social investment bank, the Global Impact Investing Steering Group is the heart and mind of a growing social investment movement bent on making impact investing mainstream.

By Elizabeth Boggs Davidsen

Entrepreneurs: Submit your projects for funding. Click on image below.

A major reason for this expected growth is the impending transfer of wealth from parents to their children. Millennials and Generation Xers stand to inherit between $30 and $40 trillion dollars from the baby boomer generation. The magnitude of this wealth transfer is unmatched by previous generations. Beyond simply the size of the inheritance, Millennials have different priorities than the generations before them. Younger investors seek investments that yield a social return, as well as a financial one.

When asked about the primary purpose of business, 36% of Millennials selected “Improve Society” as their answer. Other answers included “Enable Progress,” which was chosen by 25% of participants, and “Create Wealth,” which was picked only 15% of the time (Deloitte Survey, 2014).

In the past, investments in emerging or non-traditional markets were viewed as exceedingly risky. A lack of transparency and available information discouraged investors from exploring opportunities abroad. The digital age has changed that. Enhanced connectivity now makes it possible for investors to act wisely when investing in emerging markets. Moreover, the credit ratings in many developing nations—such as Mexico and Brazil—have improved as governments exercise greater fiscal responsibility. This development creates more opportunity for impact investing.

Investing for gender equality is rapidly becoming one of the most popular forms of impact investing. The goal is to promote gender parity and personal empowerment through debt and equity investments. There are three basic types of gender equality investments: supporting female-owned enterprises, funding companies that offer products and services for women, or expanding employment opportunities for women.

Organizations like the Calvert Foundation and Root Capital have launched initiatives to promote gender-focused investments. To quote Jackie VanderBrug, a former managing director of Criterion Ventures and now SVP at U.S. Trust: “Women are key assets in combating poverty, building their communities, and creating new pathways to a more just and sustainable world. Investing in women’s education, economic welfare, health, and overall well-being produces powerful results that benefit families, communities, and entire societies. When women become economic agents and leaders, social change accelerates and returns multiply.”

Foreign investment in developing countries dropped 16% in 2014. This has resulted in a $2.5 trillion funding gap, which has made it nearly impossible for these countries to cope with lingering problems like food and water shortages, limited healthcare access, and failing infrastructure.

Similarly, the clean energy sector is experiencing a major shortfall. The International Energy Agency calculates that an additional $36 trillion will be needed over the next 35 years to curb the most extreme effects of climate change. Since philanthropic activity alone cannot bridge the gap, advisors must educate themselves and their clients on impact investing. Our globalized economy has made it possible to engender social change and produce a healthy return on investment. Whether we can find solutions to the most pressing global challenges will depend on the commitment and foresight of investors.

By Marguerita M. Cheng is the Chief Executive Officer at Blue Ocean Global Wealth and Blue Ocean Global Technology.

Join leaders and experts in the space to shape the future . Click image below

A recent study by the EY Global Family Business Centre of Excellence that surveyed 525 family business owners and managers across 21 countries found that nearly half (44%) of those surveyed make investment decisions targeting specific social objectives along with a financial return.

The report, entitled Family business philanthropy – creating lasting impact through values and legacy, found that family businesses globally invest, on average, 3.1% of their wealth in social impact investing, with the Middle East (investing 3.5%), Europe and Asia (both investing 3.4%) leading this trend.

Meanwhile, the majority of family business owners and managers perceive governmental support for social impact investing to be better than (28%) or similar to (62%) the support for traditional philanthropy, even though in reality, only the UK has specifically legislated to accommodate and encourage it.

Survey respondents see government incentives and regulation as key enablers of family business philanthropy. In most countries, taxation seems to be viewed as a key factor for both philanthropy and social impact investing. In countries with laws that promote tax benefits for giving, family businesses are more likely to engage in philanthropy.

Mr. Englisch opines that as companies grow in size, their commitment to philanthropy rises in tandem, emphasising that it is therefore, crucial that governments “harness this desire of family businesses to give back [to society] and make a difference”.

Delegation to external managers

When it comes to organising their philanthropic activities, up to 70% of family business owners were found to be operating via a family-specific vehicle, with 40% having a family foundation or trust, and a mere 30% operating through a family office.

In terms of the success of philanthropic activities carried out, more than half (56%) of all family business owners personally oversee the progress and effectiveness of their philanthropic projects, with very small and very large family businesses tending to exert more family control over the projects compared to mid-sized family businesses.

The recently published World Wealth Report 2016 by Capgemini reported that Asia Pacific (APAC) is now home to the biggest pool of capital after overtaking North America for the first time, holding US$17.4 trillion in wealth from high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) and boasting a HNWI population of 5.1 million.

Within APAC, however, the degree of control varies according to country, which is likely to impact how family businesses manage their wealth and subsequently, their philanthropic activities. In Hong Kong and China – where the third generation is seen to be taking over the family’s inherited wealth and business – Enrico Mattoli, head of global family office, Greater China at UBS Wealth Management, observes an institutionalisation of family offices taking place, with management layers hired to manage family office affairs, governance measures implemented and traders or portfolio managers hired to focus on different specialisations.

Meanwhile, in other parts of Asia such as in Singapore where wealth is still largely concentrated in the hands of the first generation, Mandeep Nalwa, chief executive officer and founder of Singapore-based Taurus Family Office, says the delegation of investment responsibility does not come easy, which subsequently impacts the outsourcing of money management to funds.

“While the perceived value – in terms of the removal of the conflict of interest [element] – is well understood, oftentimes the firm belief by the family patriarch in his own ability to have checks and balances [in place] on private banks enables – mistakenly, in my opinion – high-net-worth families to dispense with hiring the services of a family office [manager], or a fund manager,” he explains.

By Asia Asset Management