No question with the full article that follows, but this intro dialogic is troubling me. I agree with Jean that this parsing of ‘do good’ vs the real world is all too common. Oh dear, serious and savvy — qualities ascribed by so many to the everyman ‘non-do-gooders’. So lets sharpen our pencils on this a bit.
To me it’s the conventional, scaled market players that are best described as non-serious, at least they are clearly not serious about being even slightly conscious of the full impacts of their investments. Their seriousness is redacted to one factor — value immediately available as cash — the yield that is presented, without effort, pre-monetized by the exchange to the investor— to the detriment of all other outputs and impacts of their activity whether they be easily monetized or illiquid widely dispersed and hard to calculate. They are asleep to the effects on society and the environment, and to the value proposition to any economic agent other than the two counter-parties that the conventional economy allocated capital to/from. This is un-targeted capital. It is poorly assessed and largely mis-understood capital. It is not ‘savvy’. I’d say it is more accurate to see this as sloppy capital, and surely not savvy.
So there you have it. Impact investing Myth #3: the market is limited to the serious and savvy “do gooders” — the non-serious, unconscious and sloppy players with scaled capital haven’t jumped in…..