Whole new capital markets

That is what Forbes has noted about Good Capital and xigi. Check out the xigi post here and the full Forbes story (registration required) here.

4 comments:

kevin jones said...

yes, and what is it that i meant by that? well, who knows. it was hours of talking with a reporter. the story was quite good at one time. then an editor with a fixation on tax intruded and dropped out a lot of why it was that people would actually buy this new premise, that there is an asset class between giving and investing. curiously, it has become today the top story on forbes.com and been wrapped into a four story package including a commentary on how leftists are penetrating the legacies left in their foundations by robber barrons. also included is a quixotic social enterprise funded by a rich divorcee out of her property settlement. obviously, the curmodgeons of status quo capital are adding their own unique context to our intrusion into their playpen.

Ashley Cecil said...

Do you have a list of similar firms? I've wanted to about blog about it myself, but haven't searched for other VC firms and only know of the Acumen Fund. My boyfriend is a VC, but also not as familiar with the newer, more socially responsible firms.

Lucy Bernholz said...

Ashley - Check out xigi.net - that's where the whole sector is mapping itself

phaas said...

I entirely agree with Kevin that there must be a change in the traditional methods of getting capital out to social ventures but I am not entirely sure that ensuring financial return is the best method for ensuring a social return (it should go on the record that here at AIDG we create for profit small manufacturing facilities entirely to see magnified and sustained social returns). I am a big fan of New Profit’s combination of social return and financial return but even this fails to capture some of the needs. The concern is that, from the outside, New Profit and other similar Orgs seem to play a straight numbers game. Not spending money commensurate with the earning power of the individual impacted seems risky for a NFP in these situations.

I was at the Partners in Health annual Tom White Symposium a couple of months ago watching Jim Kim speak. He spoke of how they developed their success, the answer was learning through mistakes, mistakes funded by Tom White. I worry that if funders trend towards requiring return you won’t have innovators like Farmer spending 15-20 grand a patient to cure people in Peru for MDR TB and developing DOTS plus. Perhaps not a big deal if you don’t think of the consequences of removing that source of what is essentially R&D for the poor. I hope funder desires for returns don’t prevent NFPs from posting such losses if it can help their constituencies. After all the primary goal of the NFP and the funder is in the end to actually help change a social ill.