Investing

Good Morning, Beautiful Business

June 26, 2013

This essay was originally published in the Spring 2013 RSF Quarterly.

Judy Wicks Headshotby Judy Wicks

Not long after I opened the White Dog Cafe in Philadelphia in 1983, I hung a sign in my bedroom closet in my home above the shop – right where I would see it each morning. “Good morning, beautiful business,” it read, reminding me daily of just how beautiful business can be when we put our creativity, care, and energy into producing a product or service that addresses our community needs. I would often think of my own business, and how the farmers were already out in the fields harvesting fresh organic fruits and vegetables to bring into the restaurant that day. Business, I learned, is about relationships—relationships with everyone we buy from, sell to, and work with, and our relationship with Earth itself. My business was the way I expressed my love of life, and that’s what made it a thing of beauty.

My new memoir Good Morning, Beautiful Business: the Unexpected Journey of an Activist Entrepreneur and Local Economy Pioneer follows my evolution from a little girl who rebelled against playing with dolls and learning to cook, to a businesswoman who fully embraced her feminine energy to help build a new economy—one based on caring and sharing.  A key turning point in my evolution came when I moved from being a competitive businessperson to a cooperative one.

This story begins when I learned about the cruel and unhealthy treatment of pigs in the industrial system, where sows are crammed into small crates in windowless factories for their entire lives.  I was aghast that the pork I was serving at the White Dog must come from this barbaric system, as most of the pork in our country does.  The next day, I went into the kitchen and announced, “Take all the pork off the menu. Take off the bacon, the ham, and the pork chops. We cannot serve pork again until we find a humane source.” Our chef asked farmer Glenn Brendle, who was bringing in free-range chicken and eggs, if he knew a place that raised pigs in the traditional way.  It wasn’t long before he was bringing us two pigs a week.

Next I discovered the plight of the cow—herbivores confined in barns and crowded feedlots and fed subsidized grain. So we found a local source for grass-fed beef and dairy. After much work on our chef’s part to find humane sources for all our animal products, I looked at our menus and thought, At last! We’ve done it! All of our meat, poultry, eggs, milk, yogurt, and cheese come from farmers who treat animals kindly. No product comes from the industrial system of factory farms. And we were the only restaurant in town that could make this claim. So this was our market niche. Our competitive advantage!

Then my transformational moment came. I said to myself: Judy, if you really do care about the pigs and other farm animals that are treated so cruelly; the small farmers who are being driven out of business by factory farms; the environment that’s being polluted by the concentration of waste and unhealthy practices; the workers in these ghastly slaughterhouses and factories; the rural communities that are being destroyed; and the consumers who eat meat that’s full of antibiotics and hormones, then rather than keep this as your competitive advantage, you should share your knowledge with your competitors.

Up until this point I had always felt that my highest calling was to model socially responsible practices within my company, but it was no longer enough. After all, there is no such thing as one sustainable business, no matter how great our practices are, we can only be a part of a sustainable system. I had to move from a competitive mentality to one of cooperation in order to build that system—an entire local food system based on the values I upheld.

I was ready to roll. We needed to expand the small network of local farmers supplying the White Dog to a much larger network of farmers supplying as many restaurants and retail markets as possible. I asked farmer Glenn if he would like to expand his business.

“Yes,” he replied.
“What’s holding you back?”
“I need thirty thousand dollars to buy a refrigerated truck so I can deliver to more restaurants.” I loaned Glenn the thirty thousand dollars, and he bought the truck.

It takes a lot of capital to build a new economy. The type of low-interest loan I made to farmer Glenn for his refrigerated delivery truck is needed across the country. Yet most people, even those who want to bring social change and see the need for a more nurturing economy, invest their savings in the stock market where it perpetuates the old exploitive economy. My own experience in learning how to invest differently began in 1999 when I suddenly became a stockholder. After my mother passed away, I inherited a stock portfolio comprised of holdings first purchased by my grandfather and kept in the family for over fifty years. I wasn’t quite sure what to do with it all.

At first I hired a broker to trade my stock for what was considered “socially responsible investing,” a concept where stock is “screened” to eliminate companies involved with such things as weapons, tobacco, and animal testing. But when I looked at my new portfolio, I was shocked to see Wal-Mart, a company known to destroy local economies and underpay its workers. How could I support such a company—even if it had passed through the screens created by brokers for socially responsible investing?

That’s when I realized that I did not want to participate in the stock market at all. These are single-bottom-line companies, who by law are directed toward maximizing profit for stockholders above the interest of other people and our planet. Instead, I wanted to invest in companies that passed through a different screen, one that could filter out all companies who are not independently owned and triple bottom line.

So in 2000 I sold all my stock. That’s when I first became an investor in RSF Social Finance and a local investment vehicle called The Reinvestment Fund (TRF), where I knew my money would be used to build the economy I envisioned. To the surprise of my investment-savvy friends, over the long term my investments at RSF and TRF outperformed their stock market returns.

When I discovered that the wind turbines bringing renewable electricity to Philadelphia were capitalized by TRF, I coined the term living return. The return on my investment was not only paid in dollars, but by the benefit of living in a healthier community. I began receiving a living return, and with it the happiness and satisfaction of knowing where my money was—doing good right in my community.

Naturally, I also saw living returns from direct investment in my supply chain. My loan to farmer Glenn improved my menu and supported local sustainable farming.  I made another supply chain investment in my coffee source helping Zapatista revolutionaries in Mexico export organic fair trade coffee.  Previously, the growers were forced to sell to local representatives of giant coffee corporations for such a low price that it kept them in poverty. After learning of the violence and oppression waged against the indigenous people of Mexico, I organized a group of coffee importers and investors to assist the pro-democracy struggle by developing direct fair trade routes between an indigenous cooperative and two coffee importers in the U.S.  A fellow investor and I each made a $20,000 low interest loan to the two U.S. fair trade importers who then pre-paid the cooperative so they had enough money to buy the coffee from their members.  Once the coffee was shipped to the importer and sold to coffee roasters around the country, my loan was repaid. After the second year’s loan, the indigenous cooperative had enough capital to pay their members for their coffee without a pre-payment from the importers.  Again the pay-off for me for investing in my supply chain was not only financial but in having access to organic fair-trade coffee grown by people I knew and trusted.  And, importantly, it was also an experience that helped me envision a new global economy—one comprised of a network of local economies self-reliant in basic needs and connected by fair trade.

Building a new economy, I came to realize, rests on a simple quality: our capacity to care—followed by our willingness to do what is necessary to defend and nurture what it is that we truly care about. Change begins in the heart of the entrepreneur. And for that matter, the hearts of the investor and consumer as well. It’s the power of love and compassion that can bring transformative change and build an economy that is prosperous and strong, yet one where loving relationships matter more than profits.

Judy Wicks is an entrepreneur, author, speaker, and mentor working to build a more compassionate, environmentally sustainable, and locally based economy. In working toward this vision she founded Fair Food, the Sustainable Business Network of Greater Philadelphia, and co-founded the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies, BALLE.  As an entrepreneur, Judy is best known for Philadelphia’s landmark White Dog Cafe, which gained national recognition for community engagement, environmental stewardship, and responsible business practices. With Chelsea Green Publishing, Judy recently published Good Morning, Beautiful Business (from which this essay was adapted). For more information or to purchase a copy of the book, please visit www.judywicks.com.

Impact Investing: The Challenge of Job Creation

June 14, 2013

This is the third post in a series by Morgan Simon on the trends, challenges and opportunities of impact investment, focusing on an exploration of the mechanisms which allow affected communities to lead and shape investments.

What is impact investment? This might be the most important, and simultaneously, most overplayed question of our industry. Forgive me for repeating it; however, it is critical we return to the conversation to consider how communities can better engage in, and benefit from, impact investment.

What should count or not count, and who gets to make that decision? What types of activities deserve subsidized capital in a capital-constrained universe, and which financial institutions should receive your investment dollars? So far, impact investment has been largely defined by investors themselves—the Global Impact Investment Network (GIIN) has put out a general definition, “the intention to generate measurable social and environmental impact alongside a financial return.”  There exists a myriad of investment activities that attempt to generate such impact and return.

One of the primary impact investment activities pursued has been job creation to address worldwide poverty. The World Bank estimates we will need 600 million jobs by 2020 to keep up with population growth globally—and 200 million of these jobs will be needed in developing economies.[i] Small and Growing Businesses (SGBs) , the preferred instrument of impact investors to encourage job creation after microfinance, have been shown to be critically linked to GDP growth and overall poverty reduction in developing countries.[ii]

SGB growth is therefore supposed to help poor people through two mechanisms—it creates jobs, which provide much-needed income, and it encourages GDP growth, which, in theory, supports the overall economic health of a country and reduces poverty.

These arguments have a few fatal flaws that need to be addressed before we can wholeheartedly support job creation as a strategy for global poverty reduction:

  1. We live on a planet of finite resources. By design, GDP cannot grow infinitely.  While in the short-term it’s nice to show impact investors graphs that trend up, you can’t rely on short-term fixes for long-term global solutions. This is particularly important for those of us with a regional agenda, given that one country’s success may mean another’s ruin in the context of a global race to the bottom on wages and environmental standards. It’s imperative that people focused on poverty reduction rethink GDP as a benchmark. It simply doesn’t take in to account all of the variables for truly positive social and environmental impact.

  2. GDP and poverty reduction might grow in tandem; but evidence is inconclusive on its correlation to inequality. Certainly, there are many examples of countries like India and Brazil, whose miraculous growth in GDP did not change the fact that they are ravaged by inequality and host the greatest number of poor people in the world.To take the extreme case, the US has the highest GDP in the world—and in 2012, the top 1% of the US population received 93% of the income growth. Often, SGB development is ultimately an attempt to replicate the US model of a free-market economy internationally. Should we promote a model that enables such extreme inequalities? As one International Money Fund economist commented recently in the New York Times, “When a handful of yachts become ocean liners while the rest remain lowly canoes, something is seriously amiss.”[iii] Indeed, focusing on job creation without an equal focus on equality just reinforces this dichotomy.

  3. Most importantly, poverty is not caused by a lack of jobs; it’s primarily due to the proliferation of low-paying jobs.  Gary S. Fields provides several striking statistics in the great book Working Hard, Working Poor. He notes that globally, 85% of the poor are in fact working.  The International Labour Organization defines a “working poor household” as one in which at least one member is working but the household lives on less than $2 per person per day. The working poor constitute 39% of total employment in the world, and 80% of total employment in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.[iv] Millenium Development Goal data for 2011 shows that 61.2% of people in developing regions were working—and that 18.2% of those working people were still earning less than $1.25 a day, with percentages as high as 38% of workers in sub-Saharan Africa and 35% in South-Eastern Asia.

    Is this employed person better off than his self-employed, equally poor counterpart? Or does he run a higher risk of income uncertainty given that he’s more likely to be an economic migrant with limited access to productive means such as land? I will leave this question to the statisticians, but let’s just assume for the sake of argument that living under $2a day is quite challenging whether you have been paid that $2 or generated it yourself. And I would assume that in both scenarios, your opportunities for advancement are minimal. To borrow a phrase from Fields, indeed, we don’t have a global unemployment problem—we have a global employment problem; in that the jobs we create are precisely what are keeping people poor.

    This is why organizations like the Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs have put an emphasis on defining “quality” jobs—and others argue that we should not focus on jobs at all. Recently I sat on a panel with indigenous leader Winona LaDuke—who shared with us, “Lots of people come to the res[ervation] to talk about job development. We don’t want FTEs. We don’t want to leave the res to work for Walmart. We want the preservation of our historic ways of generating our livelihood.”

  4. Employment and assets are very different and critically important. Assets (items of ownership convertible into cash) are based on a variety of factors beyond employment, such as inheritance, home ownership, and education.[v]  While a job may provide a short-term income boost to a household, it would take generations to make up for the asset short-fall that family is facing. Furthermore, assets are better indicators of inequality, including limits to economic, social, and political mobility. For example, the average wage for an African American man in the US is 25% percent lower than their Caucasian counterpart—but the more frightening statistic is that African American families in the US have twenty times less assets than Causasian families. So while a job may provide a short-term income boost to a historically disadvantaged group, it would take generations to make up for the asset short-fall that family is facing; even if incomes are relatively equal in a society. In this context job creation might help address income distribution, but would do little to address asset distribution.

 

Let’s take a step back from job creation to consider what it means to be poor. I define poor as a lack of choice to live life in a way that respects your physical needs, cultural values, social and political context, and familial obligations. This of course varies country by country, region by region, which is why as impact investors I invite us to rethink how we consider poverty reduction to be more than just a simple economic equation.

Let us consider:

-     Rather than income, what if we focused on asset-building for individuals and communities?

-     What if we focused on culturally-appropriate livelihoods, rather than limiting our viewpoint to wage employment?

-     What would it look like if we focused on equality just as much as growth?

Perhaps we would still consider job creation to be an important cornerstone of impact investment. My hope would be that we feel a greater level of confidence that our impact investment dollars were really leading to global poverty reduction and more autonomous communities.

I’d like to offer two of examples of organizations addressing these job creation challenges. First is Liberty and Justice, a West-African company which has a strong focus on livelihoods and asset-building. Co-founder Chid Liberty, a Liberian who largely grew up outside of the country, came home as an adult wanting to address poverty, and the 90% unemployment rate in Liberia. He then built Africa’s first fair trade factory—a clothing manufacturing facility employing 60 women.  These women not only have access to high-quality jobs—they own 49% of the factory, and are being trained to one day run the factory themselves. Investors (including several Toniic members) participate in a US trading company, which partners with the factory and ensures it complies with global quality standards. Chid’s vision was not only to create good jobs for women, but to help close their asset gap.

Another company that has similarly worked to level the playing field for its workers is Namaste Solar, a profitable Colorado-based solar company led by CEO Blake Jones. Their 100 employees are given the option to buy a share of the company, and have an explicit salary scale where the highest paid employee cannot make more than 4 times the lowest paid employee. This activity created a company of co-owners, which has significantly reduced turnover and helped drive profitability. Their recent investment round was oversubscribed. ­­

Who are the others like Chid and Blake? What projects have you seen that create high-quality jobs, livelihoods or grow assets while also creating viable returns for investors?

Morgan SimonMorgan Simon is the co-founder of Toniic, a global network of early-stage social investors. Toniic members share deal flow, due diligence and monitoring on global investments in this action-oriented community looking to move $100 million into global social enterprise. She is also the co-founder of Innovacion Investments, the first community development venture capital fund in Texas, and was the Founding Executive Director of the Responsible Endowments Coalition, leveraging the $400B managed by US colleges and universities. In all her work, she emphasizes community empowerment, leadership and ownership.

Thank you to Allison Basile, Grassroots Business Fund, for her contributions to this post.

 


[i]  IFC Job Study Report: Assessing Private Sector Contributions to Job Creation and Poverty Reduction; January 2013 http://www1.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/d3b612004e3468c783d5ab7a9dd66321/IFC_FULL+JOB+STUDY+REPORT_JAN152013_FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

[ii] Poverty Reduction through Job Creation and GDP Growth: Understanding the Potential for High-Impact Entrepreneurship http://www.endeavor.org/blog/fight-poverty-move-the-gdp-needle/

[iii] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/business/economy/income-inequality-may-take-toll-on-growth.html?pagewanted=all

[iv] ILO, Global Employment Trends, January 2011

 

An Innovative Approach to Financing

June 7, 2013

by Kate Danaher

 

Normally, when a values-driven non-profit social enterprise needs a large influx of capital to purchase property and expand its operations, it has three options: wait to raise all of the necessary funds from donors and foundations; approach a conventional lender, often a trying and unsuccessful process; or, seek funding from both sources, a time-consuming and also challenging process.

Common Market logoLast year, when Common Market Philadelphia, needed to expand their operations, RSF was able to assist them with an innovative combination of both debt financing and philanthropic support. This unique approach provided Common Market with the financing they needed in just a matter of months, financing they could not have received from a conventional lender.

In December of 2012, RSF Social Finance provided a $1 million mortgage loan to enable Common Market Philadelphia to purchase a 73,000 square-foot facility, now called the “Philly Good Food Lab.” The RSF lending team and Common Market’s founders worked closely together to secure the loan. Considering Common Market’s size, making a loan of this magnitude required an innovative approach including a combination of grants, guarantees, and debt financing—what we call an integrated capital approach.

When Tatiana Garcia-Granados and her husband, Haile Johnston, moved to North Philadelphia’s Strawberry Mansion neighborhood in 2002, they found themselves in a fresh-food desert. The couple started working to bring a farmers market to the neighborhood and discovered a much bigger problem. “It wasn’t just neighborhoods like ours that didn’t have a link to the farmers right around us; it was also hospitals, universities, and schools,” says Garcia-Granados. Working with other local farm and food advocates, including Bob Pierson of Farm to City, they created Common Market in 2008 to forge a distribution link between threatened farms and fresh food-deprived urban communities.

Since then, the venture has grown rapidly. In 2012, Common Market supplied over 150 customers—institutions such as schools, hospitals, retailers, restaurants, and buying clubs—with produce, dairy, and meat from about 75 sustainably run regional farms.

And that market is only continuing to flourish. Last year, Common Market’s limited facilities became the greatest bottleneck to future growth. As they expanded their product line, and more institutions requested their services, Common Market had to turn down sales opportunities due to lack of storage and packaging capacity. The path became clear. Common Market had to move to a larger space and they needed to do it quickly.

This growth in business has also driven growth in the diversity of the community ready to stand behind Common Market’s success. To secure the loan, Common Market called upon well-established relationships with organizations such as the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the Claneil Foundation, and the 11th Hour Project to procure over $350,000 in pledge contributions in conjunction with a $100,000 RSF Donor Advised Fund grant. Additionally, the Common Market community came together to make $35,000 in individual guarantees through the RSF Social Investment Fund.

This collective effort accomplished two very important goals. From a financial perspective, it made the loan possible. The grant funding strengthened the credit and made for a sound financial transaction. Equally important, at a social level, the deal built and reinforced important long-term relationships.

“Trading in a modest rent bill for a million dollar mortgage is a huge leap,” says Ted Levinson, RSF’s Director of Lending.  “The guarantee community and the multi-year commitments from foundations convinced us that Common Market was up to the task.”

RSF’s relationship with Common Market actually began in 2010. At that time Common Market had ready suppliers and buyers; the big challenge was cash flow—institutions are used to paying in 60-100 days but supporting farmers requires a shorter payment cycle, typically 15-30 days.

“As we grew we realized we were facing a huge cash flow gap. That’s where RSF came in,” says Garcia-Granados.

RSF provided a $130,000 line of credit through the RSF PRI Fund.  At the time, the Program Related Investing Fund (PRI) was a perfect match by providing low-interest loans to social enterprises not quite ready for long-term debt financing. A year later, as the organization grew its revenue and increased its stability, RSF was able to increase the line of credit to as much as $350,000 through the Social Enterprise Lending program. To date, RSF has extended this credit line into a third year.

While the demand for Common Market’s mission-driven services is strong, the capital to support their efforts was hard to come by. This is a familiar problem for social enterprises, particularly those working for a more just and sustainable food system. Oftentimes, whether for-or non-profit, organizations acting as aggregators and distributors of sustainable, local food are new with limited revenue and access to capital.

Conventional lenders and equity investors rarely take the slow growth approach to helping these businesses succeed. These companies often get their start with personal funds and the support of community, friends, and family. But, when it comes to really making a larger impact, scrappy bootstrap methods only go so far. This is where social finance comes in. Organizations need substantial financial support in order to scale. And they need it from foundations and lending institutions who understand the value of positive impacts in addition to financial return.

At RSF, we pride ourselves on supporting game-changing social innovators, like Tatiana and Haile, who don’t meet the standard expectations of traditional finance.  We have established a track record for this through debt—with steady, incremental payments—and close working relationships with our borrowers. The integrated capital approach pushes our model one step further; it allows us to offer a mixture of traditional debt financing and philanthropic funding for an organization’s growth needs—all in support of its important transformative mission.

This article was originally published in the Spring 2013 RSF Quarterly

Kate Danaher is Senior Lending Associate at RSF Social Finance.

What Funders of Social Enterprises Want

June 5, 2013

Don Shaffer - Default

Originally published by Sustainable Industries

by Don Shaffer

Interest in social enterprises is growing—and believe it or not (some entrepreneurs may have their doubts), so is the pool of capital available to them.

The broad field of impact investing—which involves directing capital to enterprises that are doing good, rather than simply screening out companies that have strong negative effects—is projected to grow by a billion dollars this year. Impact investors surveyed for a J.P. Morgan and the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) report released in January said they plan to commit $9 billion to impact investing in 2013, up from $8 billion in 2012.

Of course, much of that money will go to larger, more established businesses, not to emerging social enterprises. But RSF Social Finance does finance social enterprises that need growth capital—and our investment funds mirror the broader trend. RSF’s main investment vehicle, the Social Investment Fund (SIF), grew 20 percent in 2012, to $90.5 million.

In addition to a larger pool of capital, several other trends are creating opportunities for social entrepreneurs:

  • There’s a growing focus on developing social entrepreneurs through the use of accelerators and technical assistance groups. Some examples are Village Capital, Ashoka Fellowships, and Hub Ventures.
  • Investors are looking at alternative forms of investing, including royalty payments.
  • There’s increased interest in investing regionally, specifically in the United States.

What are investors looking for?

Many of the investment organizations funding social enterprises specialize in particular niches, or work on a few key focus areas at a time. If you’re seeking capital, your first stop should be a funder that specializes in your area—they’re more likely to understand the business opportunity, and can plug you into a valuable network.  For example, one of RSF’s current focus areas is the creation, support and expansion of decentralized, regional food processing and distribution operations, because they contribute to strong local economies by providing markets for small and midsize farmers, helping with the logistics of aggregating food from multiple suppliers across a region, and serving as market creators by connecting producers with local food buyers.  We’re also seeking to build relationships with impact-making borrowers in our other two focus areas: ecological stewardship, and education and the arts.

What qualifies as a social enterprise?

Every funder has their own criteria, but ability to demonstrate impact and capacity to run a successful business will probably always be top of the list. RSF defines a social enterprise as a for-profit or non-profit venture in which the economic activity is a means toward creating significant social or ecological impact. We vet borrowers for:

  • Social and ecological impact for public benefit: Is the organization’s economic activity a means toward directly solving or alleviating society’s greatest challenges in our focus areas?
  • Advocacy for change: Is the organization an advocate for or does it demonstrate social change in its field? Does the organization hold itself accountable and is leadership committed to the social mission?
  • Capacity to accomplish the mission: Does the organization have the capacity to tackle the problem? Do its activities have the potential for scale?
  • Commitment to financial and operational sustainability: Is management committed to and capable of growing a profitable or self-sustaining independent enterprise? Could RSF’s involvement be catalytic? Does the business meet high standards for workplace and environmental practices?
  • Community building: Is the organization building a community committed to its success?

If you have an enterprise that meets those criteria and needs a finance partner to reach the next level, please get in touch. If you’re not there yet, I encourage you to take advantage of the resources available to social enterprises. There’s never been a better time to be a social entrepreneur.

Don Shaffer is President & CEO of RSF Social Finance, as well as an alumni speaker at the Sustainable Industries Economic Forum.

Investing with a Gender Lens

May 10, 2013

 

This post was originally published on TriplePundit

By Marlena John

As a woman entering the finance world, the title of the session at the Slow Money National Gathering, Female Investors: The Most Important Change Agents on Earth, certainly sparked my interest.

Don Shaffer, President & CEO of RSF Social Finance started by telling the story of when he was a golf caddy in New Jersey, slinging golf clubs for Wall Street traders and bankers. Back then, women were not allowed on the golf course, which reflected the situation of most of Wall Street and the finance industry as a whole. The few women who did work in finance got paid a lot less than the men.

Fast-forward twenty or so years. There are a lot more females in the field, taking leadership in investment opportunities, and playing golf. The Equal Pay Act of 1963, signed by President Kennedy, prohibited pay differences based on sex. Great! But, if you think that everything is hunky dory, then you’d be wrong. As it turns out, women are still making less money than men on average, and this is particularly true on Wall Street. Shaffer claims that females on Wall Street make 55-62 percent as much as males do, though I’ve seen statistics that claim it is as high as 77 percent. Even if the 77 percent stat is accurate, women in finance are experiencing a significant, and unwarranted, pay gap.

So, women are getting paid less, and that’s not cool. We also have many more men than women investing and working in finance. But why should we care how many women investors there are? Don Shaffer laid it out well.

Continue reading on TriplePundit

 

Easter in the Investment Conference Room

March 28, 2013

At this time last year, RSF investor Rosemary Feerick, brought her two sons to our office to open their very own Social Investment Fund accounts. Later, she decided to share the story of her experience that day.

This essay was originally published in the Harvest Time newsletter.

by Rosemary Feerick

When we arrived at RSF Social Finance, Ellie, the receptionist, asked if we wanted a cup of tea.  It was the day after Easter, a day off from school for my sons.  I told the boys that we were going to San  Francisco to invest some of their college savings.

On the way to the city, we stopped at our credit union and withdrew money from a savings account I had set up for my eight year old son Ian. I gave Ian the check to hold in the car. He studied the piece of paper carefully. When we got to RSF Social Finance, he was still holding the check with care.

“I would like a cup of darjeeling, please,” Ian responded to the receptionist’s question.

“Darjeeling. Hmm. Let’s go see if we have some,” she offered, leading us into the kitchen.

Mark Herrera, RSF’s Client Development manager met us there. As Ian and Ellie focused on tea, Mark showed the composter to my 11 year old Roddy and explained what biodynamic sugar is. “These are some of the products made by the companies supported by the fund in which you’ll be investing,” Mark explained.

Next, he led us upstairs to the conference room overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge. We felt very important.

In the conference room, Mark gave the boys samples of organic cookies. Together they read the ingredients, all of which actually sounded like food. Then, Mark told the boys about a company that employs people who are newly released from prison. Next, he described with excitement a sustainable fishery in Alaska that is allowing the Eskimo people to keep their way of life. “These are more of the companies the fund you are investing in supports.” The boys nodded.

Mark then sat down with Roddy and Ian and explained the mechanics of the investment, making sure they understood how it worked and what the rate of financial return would be. Together they did the math to figure out what that translated to in terms of the boys’ investments.

Rose Feerick & Sons

Rose with her sons Ian and Roddy.

When Mark was satisfied that Roddy and Ian understood what they were getting into, he had them each fill out an application and sign it. Their accounts were officially open.

On one level, this exchange felt like no big deal; it seemed like how making an investment should work. But as I watched, another part of me wanted to celebrate. I was aware that what I was witnessing was the result of years of my searching for a different way with money.

Twenty years ago, I received a gift of love that came in the form of a financial portfolio. At the time, I understood little of how investments worked. But as I learned about the mutual funds in my portfolio, I realized that I was invested in companies whose products and ways of doing business offended my conscience. I searched for other models of investing and discovered socially responsible mutual funds.

Initially, I felt good about moving my money into those funds. But as I read through the prospectuses and annual reports, I soon realized that in spite of a variety of social screens I was still invested in companies whose products I would not buy. The socially responsible mutual funds I had in my portfolio felt to me like the lesser of two evils.

A few years later, I was attending a conference on Sabbath Economics when Rob Baird of Progressive Investments (now Portfolio 21) got up to speak about investing. He did not have any fancy visuals, but as he spoke, I felt as if fireworks were going off. Listening to Rob, I saw for the first time a way that investments could do something good in the world.

Up until then, I felt I had to hold on to some of my investments in order to care for my family. But I felt horribly conflicted about doing so because it felt that my money was sitting inside of a global economic system that is causing harm. As Rob spoke about different models of investing, a door to a whole new world opened for me. I started to search for investments that could do good.

I learned about investing in microcredit; in affordable housing mutual funds; in community development banks; fair trade companies; and social investment funds. I worked with Andy Loving, an advisor who shares my faith and began to move some of my money into those kinds of investments. When the financial statements came each month, I noticed how differently I felt opening the ones that came from investments I had chosen. Instead of feeling guilty, I felt excited. It felt like a privilege to participate in the work of fair trade companies and local organic farms.

Shifting to alternative economic models required that I let go of the possibility of a high financial return. Having been raised to believe that receiving a high financial return was “good stewardship,” that was hard at first. Didn’t I have a responsibility to seek high returns for myself and for my children?

But as I learned about the impact many corporations are having on the ecosystem and the human family, I came to believe that that definition of good stewardship was inadequate. Good stewardship, for me, needed to take into account the world that I am passing on to my children as well as the money that will eventually change hands. I wanted any investments that I participated in to be part of creating a world full of life.

On one level, my visit to RSF Social Finance to invest a portion of my children’s college savings on Easter Monday was simply the next step in my process of shifting the investments I manage into such vehicles. But that day in the conference room I felt as if something else was happening too. There was something there that felt holy.

As a mother, I feel a responsibility to form my children in Easter hope. I try to do that by modeling and letting my children know about ways of living that respond to the crises of this historical moment with alternatives that bring life. My children will inherit this world. For me, it is not enough to bring them to church. I feel I also need to show them how to discern where God is moving in the world and teach them how to participate in that.

That is what it felt like was happening that day at RSF. In the conference room, I sensed that my boys and I were participating in a way of investing money that brings life to everyone it touches. In addition, Mark’s taking the time to teach the boys about how their investment would affect others was powerful. It was as if he understood that giving children life-giving possibilities when it comes to money is a radical investment in the future.

As I witnessed the exchange, I felt a sense of awe and gratitude. I felt a Holy Presence with us as we sipped tea, ate cookies, and filled out investment account forms on Easter Monday.

Impact Investing: Lessons from the Field

February 4, 2013

This is the second post in a series by Morgan Simon on the trends, challenges and opportunities of impact investment, focusing on an exploration of the mechanisms which allow affected communities to lead and shape investments.

In my first post of this series I explored an idea called Transformative Finance; which sets out basic principles for maximizing the social impact of an investment.  In short, such investments:

  • are primarily designed, managed and owned by those affected by these projects;
  • build local assets that support long-term sustainable development on the community’s own terms;
  • are designed to add, rather than extract value from communities; and
  • balance risk and return between investors, entrepreneurs and communities.

I received a number of comments from investors and social entrepreneurs excited by the concept, and curious if they “qualified” as transformative in their work.  In response, as a way to make the point more explicit, I would like to share examples of a social investment gone wrong, and one gone right, in the same community.

With this case in mind, I invite investors and entrepreneurs to take the “transformative challenge”. Ask yourselves: is the local community included in the design, governance and ownership of the enterprise? If not, what has been lost? Looking at the financial flows of the enterprise, how much is staying in the community vs. being exported out of the region or country?

The point of this framing is not to say that all projects must be alike; innovation is one of the sacred hallmarks of entrepreneurship that we want to embrace and support. It is to say: let us be intentional about our impact, and set some basic ground rules for what we want to promote as an industry. As Andy Lower, executive director of the Eleos Foundation and Toniic board member often says, “Making money off of ‘poor’ people is traditional investing – and investors are welcome to do that if they want. Investing where you receive increased financial returns in correlation with increased impact – now THAT’s impact investing.”

So without any further ado—here is the story of several indigenous communities in the southern state of Oaxaca, Mexico and their experience with two very different impact investment projects.

Impact investing gone wrong

The Isthmus of Tehuantepec is one of the world’s greatest areas for wind energy, a fact not lost on energy companies that have invested over $550M in Latin America’s largest wind project. The project will offset several hundred thousand pounds of carbon, while offering attractive returns to investors and jobs for community members. What’s not to like?

As the Mexican press and numerous community organizations have reported, plenty.

“The creation of the wind corridor in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, developed mainly by Spanish firms, has almost become the new conquest because the indigenous Zapoteco and Ikoot communities have been basically evicted from 12 thousand hectares through unfair and disadvantageous contracts, in order to generate electric energy with their wind and on their land, in the benefit of private initiative.”[1]

Transnationals out of the country! Completely against the wind corridor in the Isthmus”

Not only has land been taken from communities (for often as little as $50/month in “rent”), but it has been done in an aggressive and violent manner including unlawful detention and physical harm of local protesters speaking out against the project. On November 5th, the Indigenous Peoples’ Assembly of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec noted the following recent actions:

“They fired bullets and discharged pepper spray at women, youth and old people, beating several of those present, including pregnant women. The police detained 9 people, among these 2 women, without giving any information about the charges or where the prisoners would be taken…

No Windpower Project on the Tehuantepec Isthmus

Immediate Liberation of the Detained

Stop the Intimidation, Hostility and Violence Generated by the Wind Power Project[2]

How did this happen? We are used to seeing this sort of thing happen in environmentally exploitative situations, but not from the clean energy community.

In short, it happened because a foreign company developed a project without thinking through its community engagement strategy or making any attempt to share financial returns fairly.  In this instance the concept of “social impact” is undermined and distorted. If is fair to assume that investors in this type of circumstance were told that  they were going to be a major force in spreading renewable energy in Latin America—a seemingly great impact story. This demonstrates the challenges associated with defining impact investing, as addressed in my last post: impact cannot simply be defined by investors and entrepreneurs, beneficiaries must be a part of the process.

Impact investing done right

In reaction to the trend of destructive development, community members on the Isthmus, declared that they were not against wind energy, but were against corporate control of their lands. They began to consider ways in which they could implement wind energy on their lands on their own terms. Working with Ashoka fellow Sergio Oceransky of Grupo Yansa, they have come up with a model for community-owned wind that will deliver strong returns to investors while equally benefiting the local community. The project plan explained below was approved in the pueblo’s general assembly, its forum for group decisions-making.

Grupo Yansa’s pilot project will take place in the indigenous Zapotec pueblo of Ixtepec, a large community with over 30,000 inhabitants, endowed with a very rich wind resource. The community maintains common ownership and management over their land and resources, dating back for centuries and codified into law after the Mexican revolution of 1917. The communal property status means that the community cannot use its land as collateral. It is therefore very difficult for them to obtain the magnitude of financing required to develop a wind farm.

However, the largest (and only) Mexican utility offers 20 year contracts to energy producers, locking in production at a fixed price. This means that as long as the community can secure the contract (and of course, execute), it will have guaranteed income for the energy it produces, significantly reducing risk to investors. The investment structure works similar to the practice of factoring—while accounts receivable are not directly purchased, they essentially serve as a guarantee on the investment. A debt structure is being offered to ensure community ownership over the project.

The profit that remains each year after debt servicing will be divided on a 50% basis between the Grupo Yansa and the community. The 50% of profits going to the community will be administered by a community trust devoted to strengthening quality of life, economic opportunities and environmental sustainability. One element of that, for instance, has been creating pension funds for elders—a way to prevent young people from having to migrate, and a benefit that can be equally shared by community members as all will eventually be eligible.

The 50% of profits going to Yansa will be used to finance further projects under the same scheme in other communities. Renewable energy projects will, therefore, finance a broad framework of integral and sustainable community development that is partly based on solidarity and sharing between different communities. Yansa’s financial participation in future projects will be the part of the investment most exposed to risk. This will ideally lower the risk profile of future investments and give Yansa access to a wider scope of institutional investors interested in safe returns and high social and environmental impact.

Closing the chasm

Globally, thousands of communities are deeply concerned about “land grabs” in the name of clean energy (see www.viacampesina.org for numerous examples, from Brazil to Japan). Regardless of the industry, basic questions must be considered: what is our responsibility as impact investors to make sure we are accountable to the communities in which we work? How do we, like Grupo Yansa, find ways to make communities front and center in the design, governance, and ownership of the work?

I do not have a single, simple answer to these questions—the same way that the impact investment community is still struggling to define impact assessment, market rate returns, and alternative deal structures. Let us just make sure that community accountability shares the pedestal as a key element of impact investment. These issues need to be debated, discussed and executed as the impact investing industry goes through its growing pains. We need to continue asking the hard questions and continue building effective frameworks and structures that will support the development of truly positive impact investments.

Morgan Simon is the co-founder and CEO of Toniic, a global network of early-stage social investors. Toniic members share deal flow, due diligence and monitoring on global investments in this action-oriented community looking to move $100 million into global social enterprise. She is also the co-founder of Innovacion Investments, the first community development venture capital fund in Texas, and was the Founding Executive Director of the Responsible Endowments Coalition, leveraging the $400B managed by US colleges and universities. In all her work, she emphasizes community empowerment, leadership and ownership.

RSF Social Finance is a proud sponsor and member of Toniic.

Note: The opinions expressed in this article are the authors alone and do not claim to represent the opinions of Toniic at large or any individual Toniic member.

 


[1] “The dark side of wind energy in Mexico” http://www.renewableenergymexico.com/?p=205

[2] http://intercontinentalcry.org/solidarity-with-the-resistance-against-corporate-windfarm-in-oaxaca-mexico/

Impact Investing for All

December 4, 2012

Earlier this year, Mark Finser, RSF Board Chair, had a lively conversation with Chris Mann, Guayaki CEO, and Matt Reynolds, Indigenous Designs President. Matt and Chris were energized about the RSF pricing meeting in which they had just participated and were enthused by the community spirit. They started asking several questions including: How can RSF borrowers better acknowledge their relationship with RSF? In what ways can the borrowers cross-promote their brands and support one another? How can the borrowers leverage their communities to raise more awareness about RSF and the Social Investment Fund, which allows individuals to make a return on their investment while providing loan funds to phenomenal social enterprises?

Chris and Matt’s spirited energy is something we always see following the RSF quarterly pricing meetings and community receptions.

There’s no question that RSF’s pricing meetings are unique. The three stakeholder groups in the RSF Social Investment Fund—investors, borrowers and RSF staff—come together to discuss the interest rate for the upcoming calendar quarter. As far as we know, this process is unprecedented in the world of financial services. What bank is out there asking investors what rate they should receive or inquiring of borrowers what a fair loan rate would be? But, it’s not just the discussion of price that makes the pricing meetings so revolutionary. It’s what happens during the meetings while the participants are sharing their needs and motivations. It’s the stories they tell about what led them to become an RSF investor or, as a borrower, what the RSF loan has allowed their social enterprise to accomplish. It’s community building around financial transactions. Through our expanding and engaged community, amplified by the impact of our borrowers, we’re building the next economy—one that considers everyone’s needs and restores trust in financial relationships.

After several discussions and brainstorms following up on Mark, Chris, and Matt’s enthusiastic conversation, we launched a Facebook campaign: Impact Investing for All. Along with Guayaki and Indigenous Designs, we’ve been joined by additional RSF borrowers: gDiapers, Happy Family, Late July, Mary’s Gone Crackers, and Nutiva.

Impact Investing for All highlights the RSF Social Investment Fund (SIF), in which anyone can become an impact investor with a minimum of $1000. All of the money in SIF is loaned to path-breaking social enterprises. If you open an account, you know where your money is working while you receive a financial return! (And, you’ll be invited to participate in the quarterly pricing meetings.) For the duration of the campaign, the borrowers will be promoting each other and highlighting this incredible community of social enterprises.

These participating social enterprises are passionate, inspiring, dedicated, and making a world of difference. We are honored to have them as part of our borrower community and we are all lucky to have such committed, mission-driven businesses in the marketplace.

Wondering if you should participate in the Impact Investing for All campaign by opening an SIF account?

Are you a mom or dad in love with the Happy Family lines which offer delicious and nutritious food for your kids? Or, are you a gMum or gDad, committed to your baby’s comfort and a healthier environment by going with disposable gDiapers?

Perhaps you’re gluten free and can’t get enough of Mary’s Gone Crackers? Or are superfoods your thing and Nutiva products a dietary staple? Do you appreciate delicious organic snacks and reach for Late July when you need a treat?

Maybe you’re a Guayaki yerba mate aficionado (we have a few on staff!)?

Is fair trade fashion a passion and Indigenous Designs a trusted purveyor?

Or are there other borrowers in our community you know and love?

If you’re interested in participating in building the next economy and know that direct, transparent and personal transactions are necessary for a resilient financial system, become an investor at RSF. All of the participating borrowers have offered generous discounts, so we have gift packages for those who open a Social Investment Fund account before Dec 31, 2012. The gift includes a $50 Indigenous Designs gift card, a $25 Happy Family basket, and much more! The gifts are limited – get yours today!

To learn more about the participating borrowers, check out the campaign page: here

To open an account, contact Mark Herrera at Mark.Herrera@RSFsocialfinance.org or 415.561.6160.

 

From Fragile to Resilient: Libor to RSF Prime

November 28, 2012

by Don Shaffer

Let’s recognize the historic opportunity we have to change the current culture of money!

We know, for example, that big banks like Barclays pushed the adoption of Libor over another benchmark—a comparatively simple cost-of-funds index that many observers now say was better for borrowers and much less volatile. The switch was made for one reason: to increase short-term profits for the banks. The foundation of trust in Wall Street has been completely undermined as a result of this and other recent scandals.

Based on our core principles, RSF is taking small steps to create a fundamental transformation in the way the world works with money. A great example is RSF Prime. We developed RSF Prime to create community among the participants in our flagship loan fund, the RSF Social Investment Fund.

For many years, we based our investors’ return rate on the 13-week U.S. Treasury Bill. Each quarter we recalibrated the rate based on this well-publicized benchmark. In 2006, we shifted to Libor because it represented the most commonly accepted barometer for short-term interest rates worldwide.

But as the first wave of the financial crisis unfolded in 2008, we became increasingly uncomfortable with this approach. We realized that pricing to meet the needs of our stakeholders could most productively be determined by the community of stakeholders itself. So we began hosting face-to-face meetings at our offices in San Francisco with representatives of the three stakeholder groups of our RSF Social Investment Fund: investors, borrowers and RSF staff. In October 2009, we adopted a customized interest rate collaboratively recommended by these stakeholders each quarter. We dubbed this new base rate for borrowers “RSF Prime”.

We believe this is the first time that a lending institution has facilitated meetings between investors and borrowers to determine loan pricing. With RSF staff at the table facilitating the conversations, all three stakeholders are visible to each other and engage in a direct and transparent exchange to understand intentions, motivations, and needs. We feel that other financial institutions such as community banks and credit unions have similar stakeholder groups that could be engaged in this way.

The loan-pricing meeting is one step towards modeling a more resilient financial system. At its heart is building community, which RSF also holds in how it works with borrowers by bringing them together to share wisdom and resources, and in its innovative grantmaking through Shared Gifting. A web of trusting relationships and a spirit of collaboration are foundational to a resilient economy. We have observed that by bringing all the stakeholders together, there is more engagement, fulfillment, and accountability.

Just as an organic or biodynamic farm relies on far fewer external inputs than a conventional farm, we are eliminating our reliance on Wall Street rate-setting, going “off-the-grid” as much as possible, so that we can be more resilient based on the strength of our investor-borrower community.

We invite you to share other ideas with us—either suggestions for what we can do at RSF, or ways you think other institutions can change to make our financial system more transparent and trustworthy. You can ask your bank about how they set their interest rates, for example.

Ultimately, we have to “be the change”, as Gandhi said. In our view, energy spent modeling a new way of working with money will have much more positive, transformative, and long-term effects than trying to change the existing system from within through regulation.

Let us know what you think!

Don Shaffer is President & CEO at RSF Social Finance.

Impact Investing: the Benefits and Challenges of an Emerging Field

October 19, 2012

This is the first post in a series by Morgan Simon on the trends, challenges and opportunities of impact investment, focusing on an exploration of the mechanisms which allow affected communities to lead and shape investments.

The concept of impact investment that has the explicit purpose of supporting economic and community development is receiving a growing amount of attention from an increasingly diverse set of financial players. This emerging trend is one of the most exciting, and potentially problematic, trends I’ve seen over the last decade. As with any new field, impact investing raises consequential questions and issues with the answers and intended results remaining up for grabs. Let’s consider the following questions to start:

1. How is impact being defined, and by whom?

2. How are strategic opportunities being identified and defined, and by whom? How will impact capital be deployed, with what objectives, and toward what ends?

3. Under what conditions shall profits be made from impact investment? Who should govern the agreements about use and distribution of the profits?

I am concerned that in a drive for global scale in impact investment, we will lose the voices that should matter the most—the billions of people who will be affected by social enterprises funded by our investments. I am advocating for the establishment of effective mechanisms to empower “beneficiaries” to be actively involved in the planning, execution, governance, and ownership of enterprises, and in the flows of capital connected with them. This is a topic we recently covered in a panel at SoCap called “Creative Financing for Community Wealth,” the main points of which I’d love to share for you in this post.

Current problematic trends in impact investment

There are several dynamics at play in the current impact investment market:

Investors and entrepreneurs profit at the expense of communities.

The goal of impact investment for many is to have a social impact while being able to make the same kind of investment returns that conventional markets have provided. If that remains the case, and if the ownership of social enterprises remains limited to the privileged, then it is difficult to imagine that impact investments will ultimately benefit communities, or facilitate any sort of resource transfer from the global north to the global south (or in the US context, from the rich to poor). If ownership structures are not addressed, then by definition, these investments must then be extracting value, thus repeating the cycle of exploitation that we have seen under so many different names over the decades. This is particularly apparent in the context of projects that see poor communities singularly as consumers rather than as participants in all aspects of the economy. There is an implicit, yet often unacknowledged, tension in impact investment between how producers are paid, how steeply consumers pay for products, and how much entrepreneurs and investors can make or expect to make over time.

Impact is being defined by investors and entrepreneurs instead of beneficiaries.

Some of the large financial institutions jumping on the impact bandwagon have made public statements defining impact as simply any investment made in a developing country. The many communities who have suffered from natural resource extraction, displacement and poor labor conditions know this is not the case, but they are not being consulted in the process of defining goals for impact investment projects. Similarly, well-meaning entrepreneurs tend to define community involvement as product research, such as holding marketing-based focus groups, rather than creating infrastructure for long-term engagement and community leadership development. This is largely due to the fact that impact investment has evolved as a “top down” industry—with investors setting the criteria for impact and returns with the consequences filtered down from social entrepreneurs to communities. In this approach there is no room for letting community needs guide the field.

There is a major “capital gap” for community-run projects.

Although many investment projects are executed in the global south, they are generally run by the privileged—these entrepreneurs and their investors are the ones who will receive the $183-$667 billion in profit that J.P. Morgan projects. It is, at this point, exceptionally rare to impossible for communities, organizations or individuals from the global south to receive access to funds if they do not speak English and have advanced degrees. Communities are simply the resource base for projects; or, moreover, their involvement is generally limited to the consumption of specific products like solar lanterns.

Capacity-building is lacking.

Capacity building programs for social entrepreneurs to receive training and access to funding are plentiful, but similarly limited to a global elite. Further, there has been no effort to engage these programs in a broader conversation about the structuring of opportunities that would create access for people without a university education. Additionally, there is a need to explore methodologies that will respect and fit community leadership models already in place, rather than asking communities more accustomed to these collective structures to adopt Western business models. Finally, there is an urgent need for capacity-building programs working in developed countries to integrate a broader understanding of community organizing in their work in order to balance out the traditional business education social entrepreneurs tend to receive with a deep understanding of what community engagement looks like. The social entrepreneur indeed has a crucial role to play, but ideally would do more leading from behind than carrying the torch his or herself.

Signs of hope—innovative impact investment that ensures assets stay in communities.

At the same time that I see the potential greenwashing in the impact investment industry, I am deeply encouraged by the emerging group of entrepreneurs and investors that is finding ways of placing community needs first. Reflecting broader trends in the establishment of the solidarity economy globally, I see the emergence of what I call transformative finance, or what Marjorie Kelly refers to as stakeholder finance in her recent (and highly recommended) book, Owning our Future: The Emerging Ownership Revolution.

Transformative Finance provides resources to projects that:

  •  are primarily designed, managed and owned by those affected by these projects
  •  build local assets that support long-term sustainable development on the community’s own terms
  • are designed to add, rather than extract value from communities; and
  • balance risk and return between investors, entrepreneurs and communities.

Transformative finance projects are thoughtful about how to engage communities not just as producers or consumers, but as leaders and change agents. They create explicit ownership structures that reflect this appreciation and intention. In their structural makeup, they create mechanisms of direct accountability to the communities they serve. They also ensure that productive assets remain community-owned and that the use of those assets is determined by the community for continued community development. These enterprises are still often led by dynamic social entrepreneurs, but in these cases they see their role as community organizers rather than top-down leaders.

One such leader is Brendan Martin, who shared the stage with me at SoCap. He is the founder of The Working World, an organization based in Argentina, Nicaragua, and New York. The Working World provides innovative financing for worker-owned co-ops based on a co-determined business plan and revenue share that ensures value created stays primarily within the community. Over the past five years they have recycled $3M over 80 times into 600 investments, with a 98% repayment rate. Recently, The Working World raised capital from a number of investors (including a Toniic member) to finance a sustainable green windows cooperative in Chicago. More information can be found here: http://www.theworkingworld.org/us/

I look forward to sharing with you a number of models on community-centered financing models from within and beyond the Toniic network through the next few posts, and further exploring some of the questions and challenges articulated above.

What are your views on these topics? How do you achieve community accountability in your investment activity? Feel free to post any comments here, or to reach me at morgan.simon@toniic.com.

Morgan Simon is the co-founder and CEO of Toniic, a global network of early-stage social investors. Toniic members share deal flow, due diligence and monitoring on global investments in this action-oriented community looking to move $100 million into global social enterprise. She is also the co-founder of Innovacion Investments, the first community development venture capital fund in Texas, and was the Founding Executive Director of the Responsible Endowments Coalition, leveraging the $400B managed by US colleges and universities. In all her work, she emphasizes community empowerment, leadership and ownership.

RSF Social Finance is a proud sponsor and member of Toniic.

Note: The opinions expressed in this article are the authors alone and do not claim to represent the opinions of Toniic at large or any individual Toniic member.

Investing

Page 2 of 1012345...10...Last »

Categories

Latest posts

Archives

Blog Roll