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)

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

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

As valuations flounder for Silicon Valley startups once worth billions of dollars, investor interest is on the rise in startups with both financial and social benefits, such as healthcare software for poor communities or low cost solar panels for homes.

So-called “impact investing” rose to $15.2 billion globally last year from $10.6 billion in 2014, according to a recent report by the Global Impact Investing Network. The figure includes several types of investment, from funds to foundations, which intend to generate social and financial returns.

The group expects a 16% rise in 2016. The change reflects investor concern with current valuations of more mainstream technology startups, a desire to help by some investors and a broadening definition of social-good startups. There is also growing sentiment that the rise of mobile technology will allow for profitable upstarts in parts of the world relatively untouched by Silicon Valley.

Earlier this year Union Square Ventures Partner Fred Wilson called the developing world “the next whitespace” for venture capital, pointing to 2.5 billion people poised to adopt smartphones.

Altruism and Profits for Kickstarter the Public Benefit Corporation

Big financial institutions such as Bank of America  BAC -7.34%  and JPMorgan Chase  JPM -6.95%  are investing, seeing rural communities and emerging markets as potential customers for financial services.

The drop in valuations for tech industry darlings that do “things my mom used to do for me” was a “pivotal wake up” for investors, said Doug Galen, chief executive of RippleWorks, which provides advisers for entrepreneurs in the developing world.

Speaking on the sidelines of the Global Entrepreneurship Summit, put on by the U.S. State Department this week at Stanford University for entrepreneurs from around the world, he and others poked fun at businesses made by and for well-off Americans.

“Uber for pets or overnight underwear delivery—those things definitely aren’t getting the same traction they were six months ago,” Andrew Beebe, managing director at Obvious Ventures, a venture firm for ‘world-positive’ investing, said in an interview with Reuters. “But take water (shortages) —on the other side of that solution is a massive pot of gold,” he said.

How Companies Can Enrich Shareholders—and the Planet

The case for investing in social impact startups is the sheer size of the market; millions of people lack access to clean water, for instance. But, with companies serving customers living on $2 a day, profits can at times be slim.

“Maybe 2% is a fabulous return in some cases,” said Matthew Bannick, managing partner at Omidyar Network.

By comparison, traditional venture capitalists might seek a return 10 times their investment.

Some impact investors such as DBL Partners have had strong returns by using a broader definition of ‘social impact.’ DBL considers its investments in electric car company Tesla Motors and Juicero, a juice company that raised $70 million in March, as having both financial gain and social impact.

“You can walk and chew gum at the same time,” said Nancy Pfund, founder of DBL, which raised a $400 million fund last year.

Still, many of the high-profile Silicon Valley venture firms have steered clear of investing outside their comfort zone.

“Your impact could be bigger. Stop looking at the 60 mile (area)” of Silicon Valley, Youssef Chaqor, founder and general manager of Kilimanjaro Environment, which recycles used cooking oil into biodiesel, told an audience of investors and entrepreneurs.

Some venture capitalists are worried about emerging market risks, such as fluctuating currencies, military coups, disease and corruption. Others don’t see enough profit.

Andrea Carafa, founder and CEO of art and music event coordinator ArtsUp, says he does not bother to tell Silicon Valley venture capitalists about the societal benefits of his startup.

“They don’t care if you’re a social impact company,” he said. “They care about your profitability.”

DISCOVER MORE ABOUT NEW PROJECTS AND INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES. Click Image below.

Institutional investors face a moment of truth about their commitment to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. Many have long realized that these issues—including climate change, workplace diversity, and long-standing corporate concerns such as executive compensation—can drive risks and returns. In fact, many large institutional investors have publicly committed themselves to integrate ESG factors into their investing. The UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) have been signed by more than 1,500 investors and managers, representing nearly $60 trillion in assets under management.

Download Brochure and Learn More. Click image.

Yet look a little deeper, and it’s clear that many investors have struggled to convert their commitment into practice. For example, less than 1 percent of the total capital of the 15 largest US public pension funds is allocated to ESG-specific strategies, such as ESG-screened passive indexes, active management using ESG insights, or private-market management with a fully integrated ESG strategy. Moreover, many institutional investors continue to treat ESG as a sideshow rather than an integral part of their investing. While ESG and corporate-governance teams are commonplace, they are often held at arm’s length from core investment activities. Even the most successful funds have integrated ESG unevenly. While sustainable-equities strategies (such as low-carbon indexes) are no longer oddities, most funds haven’t expanded ESG integration to other asset classes. Members of the PRI agree that more is required. Its board is considering a change that would allow it to remove signatories that haven’t made sufficient practical progress.

This is not to say that the industry has been standing still. In fact, three big problems have recently been cracked, setting the stage for continued growth. First, investors have struggled for some time to determine which ESG concerns are relevant to particular investments. In response, some leading institutions have embraced the idea of “materiality,” derived from the concept of material information in accounting. Much as knowledge that could influence investors’ decisions is deemed material, so too are ESG factors that will have a measurable effect on an investment’s financial performance. According to a recent study using the materiality framework of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), companies that address material ESG issues and ignore immaterial ones outperform those that address both material and immaterial issues by 4 percent and outperform companies that address neither by nearly 9 percent (exhibit). Generation Investment Management, a sustainable-investing specialist founded by David Blood and Al Gore, put ESG materiality at the heart of its global equity strategy and has reportedly exceeded its benchmark by an annualized 500 basis points for over a decade.

Second, many institutions have found it hard to measure external managers’ regard for ESG issues; they need a kind of “greenwashing” detector to see through the obfuscation that plagues some managers’ activities. A number of institutions are now successfully deploying new mechanisms to increase accountability. The New York Common Retirement Fund, for example, recently developed a comprehensive scoring system based on the best available benchmarks. Managers that don’t disclose information receive poor marks, hammering home the idea that transparency is paramount when someone else’s capital is on the line.

Third, some board members and trustees of institutional investors have worried about whether, as part of meeting their fiduciary duties, they are considering ESG factors. Recently, the US Department of Labor revised its ERISA1guidance to say explicitly that consideration of ESG concerns is a part of the pension plans’ fiduciary duty. The department also specified that when a fiduciary considers two investments that are similar from a financial perspective, it should select the one that’s better from the standpoint of ESG. Such cases come up frequently. In France, the Ministry of Finance recently announced new rules that require investors to measure their portfolios’ exposure to carbon, among other ESG considerations. With the regulatory drumbeat picking up tempo, investors will probably soon adopt sound practices to determine materiality and evaluate managers.

Accelerating progress

Materiality, scorecards, and clearer definitions of fiduciary duty are only a launchpad. A commitment to ESG integration will remain merely symbolic unless institutions change their investment and capital-allocation processes in the ways required for this kind of investing to lift off. Investors should consider six steps to broaden and enhance their ESG impact.

Require uniform corporate ESG-reporting standards based on the principle of materiality

Considerations of materiality ought to be a two-way street: publicly traded companies as well as investment managers should disclose material ESG information. Some institutional investors have already been working with groups such as the Carbon Disclosure Project to push companies to report their ESG metrics (for instance, their carbon footprint or water usage), but more must be done.

Requiring companies to share all material information in a standardized, comparable way is necessary if institutional investors and their external managers are to assess the meaningful ESG-related risks and opportunities companies face. Institutional investors can work with the groups that have sprung up to advance the cause. The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, for example, has rigorously defined materiality factors at sector and industry levels and is pushing for disclosure of material ESG factors in IPO and 10-K filings. Institutional investors should also collaborate with the Financial Stability Board’s task force on climate-related financial disclosures (led by Bank of England governor Mark Carney and Michael Bloomberg) and support the efforts of the International Integrated Reporting Council to encourage more comprehensive corporate reporting, including reporting on material ESG factors. They may also wish to comment on the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s recent consultation about whether investors would like to see more formal disclosure requirements for companies’ sustainability measures.

Build a shared ESG-rating system for external managers

Institutional investors usually have a rigorous due-diligence process for evaluating their external managers, yet too many treat their assessment of the managers’ approach to ESG as merely an exercise in box ticking. Farsighted institutions are already building systems to rate external managers more thoroughly, but a shared system would multiply the benefits considerably. Rather than duplicating one another’s work, funds could both cut the effort needed to make informed decisions and hold managers to a high standard for their ESG performance across the board.

A shared rating system should consider the sources of a manager’s ESG insights and the ways it seeks to engage with the companies in which it invests. The system will need to reflect the nuances of different asset classes and investment styles; ESG factors will be less material for many hedge-fund strategies than for managers investing in real assets or global equities, for example. Over time, a shared rating system should help prime the market for ESG-informed investment strategies. Many of them have historically struggled to gain allocations because of their short investment histories or skepticism about whether the alpha they generate will endure. That’s why institutional investors should invest in building a shared, open standard that their investment professionals will understand rather than simply outsourcing this task to investment consultants.

Work together to engage with corporations

Most investors recognize that as patient capital, engagement is for them both a social responsibility and a source of long-term returns. Yet most have small corporate-engagement teams that can work with only a few companies each year. Leaders such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, and Calpers have built relationship-investing strategies—they back engagement with dedicated capital and sometimes board seats. Large external asset managers such as BlackRock and Vanguard have strengthened their engagement teams and are working with their investors on this front.2But even these efforts have limits to what they can achieve.

Too many investors fritter away their best chance at engagement by relying blindly on third-party proxy-voting guidance. Investors have a real opportunity to move beyond ad-hoc collaboration; instead, they could agree on a specific and narrow set of principles, back these with capital, and commit their votes. From this platform, they could demand that laggards disclose material ESG factors. For example, they might join Fidelity in calling for the pay of all CEOs to be based on incentive plans that are at least five years long—or go further and call for such plans to be based on a mix of operational, free-cash-flow, and material ESG metrics.

Investors should also request better disclosure and ask companies to lay out long-term strategies showing how ESG factors may affect their ability to generate value. Businesses that depend on a “social license to operate” to maintain their pricing power or that need to invest heavily in training to expand a peer-to-peer sales force should reveal these ESG-related dependencies. Investors might slap proxy motions on companies slow to respond.

Stress-test portfolios for ESG risk factors

Since 2008, many institutional investors have strengthened their risk management—for example, by adding tools and skills needed to run scenario analyses on how their portfolios might behave in times of stress. Yet most focus narrowly on “tail” value-at-risk scenarios driven by broad macroeconomic volatility. They ought to complement this approach with considerations of unpredictable shocks, such as regional water shortages, avian-flu pandemics, and increases in (or the introduction of) externality pricing.

Other institutions are embracing risk-factor investing: they evaluate their exposure to root sources of risk, such as currencies and interest rates, and then set limits for them. In both stress-test and risk-factor investing, material ESG considerations are not always taken into account, but they should be. A risk-informed decision-making process allows institutional investors to fulfill their fiduciary duty as stewards of university and foundation assets or of the retirement savings of public-sector employees.

Public concern over climate change is a particularly acute risk factor and source of value at risk. Many institutional investors are considering whether to reduce the carbon exposure in their portfolios or even to divest out of fossil fuels entirely. We realize that some fiduciaries view this as a moral decision. Nonetheless, it is important for institutional investors to have a nuanced understanding of the actual ESG risks they are exposed to, so that they can choose whether and how to respond. Some institutional investors have decided against divestment in the short term but plan to test their portfolios continually for climate risk. They are setting clear limits that, when triggered, will require them to reduce their exposure, to encourage companies to return cash rather than invest in exploration, or ultimately to divest fully.

Use a long-term ESG outlook to unlock new investment opportunities

All investors ought to consider material ESG factors. But the long time horizons and broad market exposure of institutional investors mean that they are particularly vulnerable to the good or bad ESG decisions of the companies in which they invest. Some institutions have developed innovative investment strategies to deal with this issue. For example, several have created indexes that either screen out worst-in-class ESG companies or weight toward best-in-class companies. Since 2012, the Swedish pension plan AP4 has been running a low-carbon fund that excludes the 150 worst polluters in the S&P 500, thereby producing an index whose carbon footprint is about 50 percent lower than that of the broader index.

While differing liability profiles may make custom indexes the optimal solution for institutions, they should consider the scale benefits of collaborating with others. A good example is the $2 billion committed by six big institutions to the Long-Term Value Creation Global Index, designed for them by S&P. Investors should also think beyond passive equities and consider how they can use ESG factors to reduce risk or identify alpha across a range of asset classes. An obvious possibility is direct investments in companies and real assets where institutional investors have enough influence or control to upgrade the ESG management.

Finally, only a handful of ESG managers have ten-year track records. Institutional investors shouldn’t wait passively for such track records to turn up—they ought to use their emerging-manager programs to seed and support innovative ESG-informed strategies. Several managers are pushing the boundaries of ESG-informed investing (see sidebar, “Innovative approaches to integrating ESG”).

Confront the skepticism and misunderstanding that surround ESG head-on

Successful investment organizations have strong cultures, but strengthening a culture takes time. At many institutions, ESG investing is caught in a cultural trap. For decades, conventional wisdom has held that ESG and its forebears, such as socially responsible investing, are merely a sideline, something to be worked on separately from the true business of investing. Changing this mind-set requires concrete action.

Chief investment officers must direct a cultural change within their investment teams. For a start, they can model the right behavior by leading the integration of ESG into the investment committee’s risk/return discussions. Institutional investors should also consider whether training and certifications may advertise the value they place on ESG fluency. Just as the CFA Institute’s Claritas certificate gives investment professionals a measure of credibility after only 100 hours of study, an industry-wide ESG certification could become a signal of qualification to institutional investors as they hire and invest. Bloomberg, the CFA Institute, the SASB, and many universities already offer ESG courses, and some consolidation around a clear industry qualification would benefit everyone.

Turning a symbolic commitment to ESG into daily practice will not be easy. But faced with rising stakeholder demand for meaningful action, there is little choice. Institutions that get out in front of the growing wave will be the first to reap the benefits of sound ESG investing: better returns, lower risk, and—should these ideas be widely adopted—a more sustainable world.

Today we take a a look at the investor side of the alternative finance market, which is comprised of both retail and institutional investors. We foresee that equity crowdfunding, like debt-based P2P lending, will continue to evolve and attract ever more institutional investors going forward, boosting deal volumes and injecting more professionalism in the market.

The slashing of interest rates globally in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis pushed retail investors to look to non-traditional investments to boost returns. This major development boosted the popularity of the alternative finance market as an asset class. Since then, the increased access afforded by the online investment model has meant that the industry has secured its position alongside more traditional asset classes, drawing the interest of institutional investors.

As it stands, the investor side of the alternative finance market, incorporating both debt and equity, is made up of both retail and institutional investors. As the alternative finance market moves upstream, drawing larger more established SME issuers, institutions are becoming more involved. These institutions are investing in the space both through platforms and in the platforms themselves.

Retail

Retail investment into the P2P market has been primarily driven by the low interest rates available globally on bank deposits. When factoring in inflation rates, the picture for savers becomes even worse. In the UK for example, with interest rates at 0.5% after the financial crisis and inflation at around 2% up until recently, in real terms, capital deposited in banks was decreasing in value. Compared to the rates on offer from various different P2P platforms during the same period, it is easy to see why alternative lending has become so popular for consumers.

Other key drivers for P2P lending include: the diversification benefits brought about by incorporating new asset classes into a portfolio; consumers general dislike of banks as a result of their perceived role in the global recession; and the ability for investors to choose exactly where their capital goes.

The story with retail equity investment is similar – it is the outsized returns from private company investment that draws investors. But aside from this, the key driver for equity crowdfunding’s rapid growth is the increased access to a previously severely restricted asset class. For relatively small qualifying amounts, investors can now gain access to a market that has been traditionally out of the reach of most ordinary people. The low qualifying amounts also mean investors can spread their investment over a number of companies and lower overall portfolio risk.

Prior to the introduction of equity crowdfunding platforms, it was notoriously hard for individuals to invest in private companies. Legislation made it illegal for companies to advertise that they were raising funds, meaning they could not post it on a website or on social networks, making it hard for investors to identify which companies were in need of capital. Other ways were to invest were via an angel network or venture capital firm, but both are prohibitively expensive for the majority of people.

Institutional Investment

Thus far the alternative finance sector has seen a divisive split between the characteristics and development of equity versus debt-focused platforms. Debt platforms have outpaced equity offerings in the pace at which they have been adopted by institutional investors. In fact, many P2P lenders, such as Lending Club, Funding Circle, and Prosper, already have direct funding lines to banks. Arguably one of the reasons that the P2P lending market is comparatively more advanced than the equity crowdfunding market is that the offering is more advanced for institutional investors. Tools are more complete and allow institutions to more easily analyse investments, assess risk and execute deals. Platforms such as Orchard and PeerIQ, make the investment process simpler and more transparent. The short-term returns available through platform-based lending should also not be overlooked as a factor driving this trend. The ready adoption by institutional investors helps explain why debt platforms have received more media attention and outsized valuations, such as Lending Club’s $6.42Bn valuation as of June 2015. However, equity platforms now look set to catch up with debt platforms as they increasingly attract institutional investment.

When it comes to equity crowdfunding, a more complete offering that better serves the need of institutions is starting to emerge. As more data providers and marketplaces come online, allowing institutions to better source and evaluate deals, institutions are becoming more involved. Newer hybrid, co-investment models are evidence of institutional participation alongside the crowd.

One of the major trends in the financial markets has been ever-later IPOs by large, successful, young businesses. This has meant that investors, especially on the institutional side, such as those from hedge funds and mutual funds, are having to invest in companies when they are still private in order to see the outsized returns they used to earn from investing at the IPO stage. A number of developments are making such investing more viable and fluid.

Firstly, aside from the increased access that equity crowdfunding platforms afford investors, they are also able to massively reduce the time it takes for investors to make decisions. Platforms do a lot of the legwork by condensing all the investment articles into one place and save the investor the time it takes to reach out to a company themselves. They can also offer guidance in the form of pre-vetted deals and by being able to view the other investors in a deal.

Additionally, the growth of platforms like SecondMarket and Founder’s Club, makes it easier than ever for investors to commit capital comfortably, allowing investors to enter and exit positions in a similar way to what they have grown accustomed to in public markets.

All of this informs our view that equity crowdfunding, like debt-based P2P lending, is going to attract ever more institutional investment moving forward, boosting deal volumes and professionalising the market. Some institutional investors may even go a step further, investing in the space by buying the platforms themselves.

By Michelle Tang

The Finnish arm of Sweden’s Nordea Bank will be the first Nordic bank to offer businesses access to the crowdfunding market by launching a technology platform in the summer of 2016.

The technology will enable investors to provide capital for growing businesses through automated processes – a major change for a bank as it will not be providing the capital but enabling other organisations or individuals to do so.

Startup businesses are increasingly turning to crowds for financing – the European crowdfunding market topped €6bn in 2015.

“Digitisation is transforming the banking industry and we want to be part of that transformation,” Topi Manner, CEO of Nordea Bank Finland, told Computer Weekly. “We will offer startups and growth companies the chance to find funding through a digital platform and bring together investors and companies in need of financing.”

It’s no secret impact investing is mainstreaming quickly, with large, commercial investors like Zurich, Blackrock, and UBS taking significant strides. Yet the question remains: just how rapidly is the market changing, and what are the implications?

ABP, Europe’s second largest pension fund, with more than 380 billion euros (about $430 billion) under management, announced last year that it would increase its allocation to high sustainability investments (those aiming to create positive and measurable social or environmental value) to 58 billion euros in 2020, up from 29 billion in 2015. Meanwhile, the Dutch pension fund PFZW intends to allocate 12 percent of its entire investment portfolio to solutions in renewable energy, water, food security, and healthcare. By 2020, this will reach 25 billion euros (about $28 billion)—up from 5 billion at the end of 2014. In addition, insurance companies such as AXA and Zurich, and banks like BNP Paribas, JP Morgan, and Barclays have committed up to 5 billion euros of their proprietary capital to impact investment programs while developing solutions for their clients.

These examples show that institutional investors are accelerating their pace of investment in what many see as opportunities to positively impact our global society, environment, and economy. They are investing increasing amounts of money in the reduction of carbon emissions, improvement of global supply chains, developing tiered capital structures and public-private partnerships, and building “digital supply chains” in business and financial services. These efforts will not only help solve some of the biggest challenges of our times, but also help transform the current practice of impact investing, as they did with socially responsible investing a little over a decade ago.

Looking at the gigantic efforts required to solve global problems, institutional investors tend to think big, differently, and historically. And their efforts will redefine how we view finance for societal purposes—slowly, but gradually.

Thinking Big

In 2015, the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) and J.P. Morgan reported a total amount of some 60 billon dollars in impact investments—up from 48 billion in 2014. This indication of the steady growth of the impact investing market is encouraging. Compared to the capital required for boost sustainable development across the globe, however, it’s a drop in the ocean.

The social, environmental, and economic challenges at hand were defined in 2015 at some landslide events. In July, world leaders came together in Addis Ababa for the Third UN Financing for Development Conference to discuss the most pressing issues to finance development. The launch of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in New York in September followed, and the year ended with the Climate Agreement in Paris. Implementing the intended outcomes of these goals will require trillions of dollars in additional investments annually. Both the Ababa Action Agenda and the Paris Climate Agreement need investments of 13.5 trillion dollars in the next 15 years. And the UN Conference on Trade and Development estimated in 2014 that bridging the SDG gap in developing countries demands additional funding—on top of the investments already committed to development—of some 2.5 trillion dollars annually between 2015 and 2030.

This money can only come from the private sector, since multilateral and bilateral donors provide only an annual 140 billion dollars in core and non-core development assistance. Primarily governments and donors are looking at institutional investors such as pension funds, insurance companies and the world’s leading asset managers to bridge the gap.

Thinking Differently

Leading pension funds, insurance companies, foundations, and asset managers across Europe and North America are pushing the responsible investment envelope. As signatories of thePrinciples for Responsible Investment (PRI), they employ highly developed environmental, social, and governance (ESG) strategies, such as the use of voting and engagement power and the exclusion of highly controversial investments. They have also started investing in assets such as sustainable real estate that intentionally generate positive financial and ESG returns. Commitments include investment in the Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark(GRESB) and the 600-billion-dollar climate bond market. Institutional investors are also increasingly interested in direct infrastructure investments in renewable energy, solid waste management, water treatment, housing, small and medium enterprise finance, and microfinance—a shift from allocating capital to niche initiatives such as social businesses, smallholder agriculture, and single projects in developing countries, to more scalable instruments and business models.

It’s important to note that institutional investors are changing their approaches and developing new financial products that match the institutional logic of investment, which consists of: remaining within the perceived limits of fiduciary responsibility, the size of the investments, the track record of the investment manager, and the rules and regulations set by the supervisory authorities. Examples of new products include green bonds based on criteria developed by the Climate Bond Initiative; bonds issued by the International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIM), which have provided vaccines to 400 million children in developing countries; and Climate Investor One, which accelerates renewable energy in emerging markets.

While institutional investors don’t use the term “impact investing” to describe these efforts, they are nevertheless meeting the three core criteria of impact investments: intention to create a positive impact, measuring output and outcomes, and generating market rate financial returns. Critics have pointed out that impact investing runs the risk of becoming the emperor’s new clothes—that, at its core, impact investing is about developing, stimulating, and protecting the social, environmental, and economic values that make our world a place worth living in, and that financial returns are important but do not constitute the essence of impact investing. But this won’t stop institutional investors from developing their own agenda and gradually transforming the impact investment market.

Thinking Historically

The PRI replaced traditional ethical or socially responsible investments, and popularized the notion of ESG. Importantly, it captured and promoted the idea that responsible investing should focus on good governance first and foremost; environmental and social objectives were also important, but came second to proper management, oversight and control of a company. By shifting the focus from ethics to governance, the idea of responsible investments suddenly became acceptable to institutional investors—most notably after research demonstrated that a focus on governance resulted in a clear financial outperformance. It is not difficult to imagine how institutional investors could similarly apply the logic of institutional investment to this emerging field and increase the relevance of impact investing for a wider community of investors. In doing so, they would also contribute to solving some of the most pertinent social and environmental challenges of our times.

The Future

The biggest challenge investors currently face is finding investable deals and projects. Money hardly ever is the problem. In emerging markets and developing countries, numerous projects are available in areas like solar, wind, or hydro energy; waste-to-energy conversion; and social housing. But most of these aren’t the right size or don’t yet have the right risk-return-impact profile to qualify for institutional investment. Here lies an opportunity for “traditional” impact investors—in collaboration with international finance organizations, development banks, large foundations focusing on market transformation, and governments—to develop projects that contribute to the realization of the SDGs and other goals. New, blended financial arrangements that bring together investors with different risk-return-impact profiles may prompt a large-scale infusion of institutional capital focused on solving the world’s largest problems. The current impact investment community can also function as a critical observer of the institutional investors when they develop large-scale projects, and thereby create social and environmental outcomes for the communities that are intended to benefit from these investments. This requires that governments, project developers, consultants, and financiers collaborate and fine-tune risks during the various stages of development.

It won’t take long before the institutional investment community becomes a force to reckon with in impact investing. It has the power and resources to contribute, but it also stands to transform the impact investment market through thinking differently and big, and applying lessons from the past. We welcome this development as an opportunity to build a better world, but we must remain critical about the potential downsides. The traditional impact investment community can help institutional investors create opportunities for development, while at the same time keeping an eye on the potential social, economic, and environmental risks.

By Harry Hummels & Rodolfo Fracassi