tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post2436846231731500651..comments2024-03-28T03:11:22.839-07:00Comments on PHILANTHROPY 2173: Structural incentives for aligned investingLucy Bernholzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09253941214286179394noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-50675303986371363012007-06-06T07:36:00.000-07:002007-06-06T07:36:00.000-07:00Lucy, I completely agree with you. However, regula...Lucy, I completely agree with you. However, regulatory & tax action (either removing regulations, as with the Schwab example, or adding new regulations) is often like swinging a sledge hammer. It can get the job done, but it is hard to have the precise effects you want. I think your proposal to tax endowments if they aren't mission aligned, before a real market place of mission aligned investments exists, is too heavy handed and would have unintended consequences. But I would support regulatory or tax action to try and spur the development of mission aligned market places.Sean Stannard-Stocktonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07403925570833037540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-89237028917988242032007-06-04T14:55:00.000-07:002007-06-04T14:55:00.000-07:00Great point. The idea you posted earlier about mo...Great point. The idea you posted earlier about modifying the tax-exempt treatment of returns from non-aligned investing would be a good start. Also, as your examples suggest, investment firms looking to offer aligned investment products may become allies of such a push (strange bedfellows), and may offset or overwhelm opponents. A tax or reg change would have the secondary effect, too, of legitimizing the aligned investing approach, and hand foundation staff some leverage to use in their internal debates with board members. In this way the monetary value of the incentive might be less important, though it must be real, not simply symbolic.Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00136441738039757184noreply@blogger.com