“Finance isn’t the story”

At the beginning of a workshop at last week’s Good Deals social investment conference, the panel chair suggested that the panelist from Big Society Capital (BSC) needed to put a toilet on their head because everyone was crapping on them.

While, Caroline Mason, the social investment wholesale institution’s outgoing chief operating officer, wasn’t the person on the receiving end in that specific instance, she’s had to deal with plenty of tough questions since the organisation was launched by the prime minister in April 2012.

At the time, minister for civil society, Nick Hurd claiming it would make it easier for charities and social enterprises to access long-term capital but this has not been the experience on the ground.  As a result, over the last 18 months there’s been a growing feeling within the social enterprise movement, well encapsulated by Robbie Davison and Helen Heap’s report Can Social Finance Meet Social Need? that social investment, in its current form, is not for us.

I meet Mason as she prepares to leave BSC to become chief executive of the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, a role she describes as ‘a bit of a dream job, really’.  Thoughtful, well informed and understated are not necessarily terms that would come to mind when describing most leading figures in UK social investment but Mason is one of a handful of honourable exceptions.

When asked whether, 18 months on from its launch, things going well at BSC, she gives a considered response:  “I think that there are some things that are going well and there are some things that are not going in the way that it was expected.

For Mason, what’s going well is that people are beginning understand that: “Finance isn’t the story, it’s a mechanism by which money flows from here to there and it should be as lean and as mean and as efficient as possible.

Where once it was all excitable talk about complicated financial products: “Now people are talking much more about unsecured finance being made available, they’re talking about simple charity bonds. There’s still quite a way to go but I think that’s been a positive move in the last year to 18 months.

When it comes to what’s not going so well, Mason explains that: “It’s taken longer [than expected] for BSC to really understand the underlying market. It’s in a difficult position where it’s a wholesaler that can’t engage directly with the underlying market – it has to go through intermediaries – so sorting out that and making sure that the way intermediaries are assessed is in the context of what the need is. I think that is now happening and it didn’t happen at first.

It seems strange that need wasn’t a clear priority in the first place. I ask why: “I think it’s well recognised that a lot of the people within Big Society Capital did not come with an understanding of the market and the sector. That balance is now being addressed within Big Society Capital – more is being done in collaboration and more people are being brought in with some knowledge of the sector.

Another problem, which may or may have been related to the first one, is that in the first year: “Not very many of the existing [social investment] intermediaries came to Big Society Capital [in the first year]. They were all the new ones. So, I think the combination of a new organisation with new intermediaries meant a lot of learning happened on the job.

Supply vs. demand

The 2012 Big Lottery-backed report, Investment Readiness in the UK, the biggest survey conducted into the demand for social investment from social organisations identified that: “Organisations that are looking to raise finance are primarily interested in longer term finance of less than £100,000 to help them scale up their existing activities. This does not match the dominant type of capital on offer to this sector.

Several other reports, including the BSC-backed report, The First Billion, have also drawn attention the fact that while social investors mostly offer relatively large secured investments, social organisations want relatively small unsecured investments. I ask Mason, how or whether she believes the social investment sector can close the gap between supply and demand.

Her response is that: “I would say that [the demand for investments of] £10,000-£100,000 is never going to be serviced by social investment alone. I just don’t think that’s going to happen and actually, I don’t think it should happen, because generally speaking these organisations are either growing or they are dealing with people who are very vulnerable.”

Mason believes that what is needed is the right mix of social investment and grant funding but admits that she’s not completely sure what that is: “[Robbie Davison + Helen Heap’s] report on builder finance is exactly the bit [of the market] that currently isn’t being served. How do we do that? I don’t know.

After years of listening to bumptious, self-congratulatory social investment advocates declaring that grants are dead and that social organisations need to stop moaning and learn to live in the real world, it’s oddly refreshing to meet a leading figure in social investment who admits to not knowing the answer to anything – but it’s particularly surprising that Mason admits that whatever answer does emerge is likely to involve grants.

While there’s no reason to think Mason herself has ever thought otherwise, BSC as an organisation has spent 18 months being slapped in the face by reality after chief executive, Nick O’Donohoe’s 2011 pre-launch assertion – http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/Article/1090205/Interview-Nick-ODonohoe/ – that:  “We’re not interested in grants or soft loans“ because “We are an investment institution.”

While in a sense he was right – part of BSC’s remit is to be operationally sustainable so it can’t make investments that are likely to lose money – there is a clear disconnect between that position and the needs of social organisations.  O’Donohoe seems a bit keener on grants now.

Given that Social Enterprise UK’s 2013 State of Social Enterprise Survey, The People’s Business, revealed that the median turnover of a UK social enterprise is £187,000, I ask whether the underlying problem is that most social enterprises are just too small to take on investment.

Mason says it’s more complicated than that: “First and foremost it depends I think on the duration. I think investment can work but the length of time and the flexibility of that investment has to be congruent with the kind of organisation that it’s investing in. There’s no point in having a short term loan that will break the organisation that you’re investing in. So, is there a need for long-term, patient, flexible, unsecured lending? Yes. And do I think that organisations around that mark could use that kind of financing? I think they could. I think they’d need to use it alongside other forms of financing as well.

I ask whether it would be possible to set up an intermediary that could do that kind of lending and be financially sustainable itself. Mason is hopeful but agrees that this intermediary doesn’t yet exist:  “I’ve used the example about music: when I was growing up I used to tape the top 20 – nowadays you can create your virtual top 20 and you pay 79p a song. I keep thinking: can we not deconstruct this market in a way that people can identify things that they’re really interested in, and they’re not even having to invest £250 but they’re actually investing £5 into something? I really think there is something there that will take a very useful, entrepreneurial and a smart person who is very socially-minded to do that.

Eejits in pinstripes

In a recent column for Pioneers Post, Liam Black echoed the views of many in the social enterprise sector when he wrote that social investment has been characterised by: “too many eejits from the City sniffing around in their pinstripes displaying an arrogant stupidity which makes me ache to slap their smug chops.”

I ask Mason whether social investment is being held back by cultural differences between the social and financial sectors – or whether each just disagrees with what the other’s saying.

Mason, who worked in mainstream finance herself before joining Investing for Good and then Charity Bank, says that: “Most people I meet from the financial sector personally get this in spades and want to get it. They want to think that you can actually invest money in a socially beneficial way.

The difficulty, she believes, is that: “the machinery of finance and the thinking that goes behind that machinery is pointing one way and increasingly people are pointing another way: individually people get it but we’ve had thirty years of a certain type of thinking and being – group think almost – around profit maximisation and growth; now people are having to rethink that and that takes some time.

While there may be something in this assessment, I suggest that the annoyance that Black and others in the social enterprise movement feel is more to do with the implied view from many social investors that most social entrepreneurs would have profitable businesses if they’d only let a kid from KPMG’s graduate programme teach them to create proper Excel spreadsheets.

Mason is diplomatically unsure about the extent of the problem: “I think if that does happen, it is unfortunate and all the sector can do is educate those people and show them that they do run very good businesses: [social organisations] may not understand investment structuring but similarly people from the finance and investment world don’t understand social change.

She’s clear, though, that it would be a mistake for social investment to replicate failing practices from the world of mainstream finance: “I think that what has happened, not just in the social sector but generally, is that there’s been a disconnect between mainstream financial institutions and advisory firms [and] the real economy, whether it’s about hairdressers on the high street or [a social organisation] buying two minibuses. Again, it’s coming back to this mechanics of finance: if we can take what’s there and use the skills that already exist in the financial world to make [the social] sector stronger then that’s a good outcome – trying to impose things that don’t work within the sector, that’s the wrong outcome.

Private matters

I ask about the growing concern in the social enterprise movement that social investment – including money from Big Society Capital – is being invested (or will be) in private sector companies, with prominent examples being some of the organisations funded through the government’s Social Incubator Fund.

For Mason, this is about finding a way to tackle the problem that organisations that have share ownership structures can’t take equity investment: “The fact is that company-limited by shares is currently the mechanism by which you can get equity investment. It’s very difficult to get equity investment if you’re not a company limited by shares.

Mason is supportive of Unltd’s work on Trust Engines, while being less keen on the label itself: “I call them trust mechanisms. I don’t like the word engine but trust mechanisms or something that can tie in equity, that can lock equity and mission, would be fantastic. I don’t think that’s a drift away from social investment, I think that’s people struggling with the fact that they can’t get equity investment into the existing legal forms that exist around social enterprise.

When I suggest that it is a drift away from social ownership, Mason responds that: “If we can find a way to absolutely lock mission, together with equity then that is a huge prize worth winning. I don’t know what the answer is to that but I think that as this sector matures that is another key thing that has to happen – to ensure that you don’t get mission drift and money not locked in for social purpose.

Floating the question

Mason displays the same spirit of good humoured pragmatism when discussing the Social Stock Exchange (SSE), the curiously-named social impact reports website for listed companies, launched by prime minister (a recurring curse in the world of social investment) at the G8 Social Impact Investment Conference in June 2013.

While this blog has noted that the SSE is clearly not a stock exchange and has dubious claims to be social, Mason is keen to point out the positive benefits of the project:  “It’s about making private sector organisations more accountable. That is exactly what it’s there to do. It’s there to push the disclosure and accountability of publicly listed organisations, and to bring the kind of disclosure and exemplar practices from the social sector into the listed public sector.

In response to my question about whether we could do with something that actually was a social stock exchange, she suggests ‘positive investment’ platform, Ethex, has a role to play:  “Ethex has raise £1million now in the first nine months. That is a trading platform for unlisted social organisations. It’s very early days but there is a mechanism there and people are trading, and buying and selling shares on a secondary market there. I’m on the board [of Ethex] so I declare [an] interest. I think it’s a fantastic organisation.

Mason acknowledges that the current options for social organisations looking to raise investment are insufficient: “There needs to be more places for organisations to go to raise money and there needs to be more marketing around these platforms. I can’t stand Wonga but their marketing and advertising campaign is second to none and that’s one of the reasons why it’s so successful because everybody’s heard of it, everybody knows how to access.  It’s really simple. So can we create some sort of social investment platform like that?

Given the big gaps between what social enterprises and charities need and what they’re getting, I suggest that there needs to be more opportunities for social sector organisations to make practical suggestions about what they want from the social investment market.

Mason agrees: “I think that’s actually very fair because if you think about when Social Investment Task Force [chaired by Sir Ronald Cohen, which ultimately led to the creation of Big Society Capital] happened, it happened before the crash and actually the world has changed since then:  the concept of finance has changed, I think the concept of business is changing and need has changed.

As Mason leaves BSC to view the changing landscape of UK social investment from a different perspective at Esmée Fairbairn, the team she leaves behind have a big job on their hands.

14 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

14 responses to ““Finance isn’t the story”

  1. Coming from background business and economic development we weren’t in need of a KPMG graduate when it came to social enterprise business plans. Back in Russia, for example it had been something of an embarrassment for Deloitte Touche whose efforts at creating a microfinance initiative preceded the Tomsk Regional Initiative. They’d closed down after the first loan recipient orientation session. According to locals, they’d depleted the budget with their own consultancy fees.

    The Tomsk community bank which was to invert the preceding US trickle down strategy for international development would be up and running by 1999 putting credit in the hands of those who needed it most. The bank became self sustaining in its second year.

    A social finance intermediary which can be self sustaining doesn’t exist says Mason, yet we know it’s been done before the Social Task Force was dreamt of, So does Finca who still run it.

    Bob Dylan once wrote on an album cover “i know there’re some people terrified of the bomb. but there are other people terrified t’ be seen carrying a modern screen magazine “. Social finance is being steered by a man terrified of revealing whether he’s domiciled here for tax purposes.

    When we went public with our proposals for a social innovation fund in Ukraine in 2007, it was described as “a social-benefit fund under oversight of an independent board of directors, particularly including representatives from grassroots level Ukraine citizens action groups, networks, and human rights leaders”. To BSC, it would seem to be unimaginable. Perhaps deniable would be a more appropriate term.

    It’s a ‘Brave New World’ of impact investment, I learned. A phrase used to conclude our letter to USAID and a Senate Committee where Joe Biden and Barack Obama sat at the time. How new and how brave is something worth considering.

    http://www.p-ced.com/1/node/216

  2. Beanbags admin

    Hi Jeff,

    The point being made by my question (and Caroline Mason’s answer) is not that it’s not possible to run a self sustaining social finance intermediary at all. The major social banks, which account for over 80% of the investment currently described as ‘social investment’ are self sustaining.

    The question was whether it’s possible to have an intermediary that offers significant numbers of social enterprises, which are mostly relatively small businesses, mostly seeking unsecured loans, the finance they need while also being self sustaining. That said, it may well be that are lessons to be learnt from the Tomsk community bank and those working in UK social investment may want to look at it.

    • Yes, fully understood David.

      It;s about both the bank and the businesses created being self-sustaining. In Tomsk 99% survived their first year and 98% of loans were repaid. It also broke the convention of the Grameen model in having no gender discrimination.

      The cost of collateral free microlending is relatively high due to the cost of management What we added was the concept of a ‘community funding enterprise’, a business investing at least 50% of profit to stimulate a local economy.

      Our experience of wilful blindness to childcare neglect which by coincidence JK Rowling spoke to the BBC about yesterday, after my reply, was equalled by the wilful blindness of those in social finance.

      We’d warned in 1996 that the division of the haves and have nots would lead to uprisings and repeated that warning in 2004, where the living wage was clearly stated in our business plan.

      It beggars belief that today it’s being regurgitated as if like George Bailey we learn that we and the ‘Savings and Loans’ had never existed.

      http://www.p-ced.com/1/node/217

  3. It’s really useful to get an update on what’s happening in regards to finance for social enterprises. Glad to see that “complex financial products” are no longer the only possibility being discussed.

    I’ve also been wondering for some time what the impact of a special tax regime for donations would be. Social enterprises are companies but many behave with a charitable purpose too. Are donations to social enterprises a huge grey area at the moment?

  4. Beanbags admin

    Hi Juan,

    Donations for social enterprises aren’t an especially grey area.

    ‘Social Enterprise’ isn’t a legal form so organisations that regard themselves as social enterprises but also look to generate a significant portion of income from donations are most like to register as charities – and therefore be able to take make use of gift aid.

    There has recently been a consultation on proposals for tax relief on social investment. The Treasury is currently ‘analysing your feedback’.

    • Thanks for replying to my comment David. I started writing a quick reply but it’s become a long one. Sorry about the length but I’d love to hear your comments if possible.

      By “grey area” I mean activities which do not clearly fit within the private companies vs charities binary. This may be because of organisational reasons, resources available or type of activity.

      Gift aid is certainly a good enough reason for an organisation to become a charity. If income is going to come primarily from donations and grants it makes a lot of sense. That would probably be the obvious route for the majority of new British charities.

      However, there are charitable activities which may find the legal status as a social enterprise more suitable. I’m talking mainly from experience here, but I would love to stand corrected on this as it has caused me a few headaches already.

      Some reasons why forms such as CIC might still be attractive even for organisations which receive donations may be:

      -Offered services and products are digital and customers/users may be located any place worldwide (this is my case). Gift Aid would only apply to British taxpayers and so its benefits may not be relevant in all scenarios.

      -The Charity Commission has strict and clear (and necessary!) definitions of what a charitable purpose is. Some organisations may not fit into this criteria (my case I think)

      -Setting up a charity requires a lot of work and, more importantly, resources. As a charity trustee, I have learned that charities can absorb a lot of time and resources for organisational purposes. But a CIC has the advantage of offering a more manageable model for new projects. A social enterprise form allows to kickstart a project quickly without investing a significant amount of resources and time. New ideas can easily put into practice and if they don’t work move on. A CIC also has the advantage that it can become a charity later on when the project is more stable (might be my case in the future) or try commercial ventures if donations do not work on their own.

      -Some CICs are starting now to look into corporate philanthropy as a means to generate extra revenue. Because donations to CICs are not “charitable” they may not have the same tax benefits for corporations. And therefore, companies run away as soon as you mention the CIC word (not my case, but I know of other CICs which are in this “grey area”)

      All in all, I think British legislation is still too dependent on an old binary model of companies vs. charities (the big split between Companies House and the Charities Commission illustrates this). I see social enterprises and charities more as a continuum. The majority of activities probably fit in either of the two extremes, but there are also social enterprises which fall in the middle and get squashed. I’m just keeping my fingers crossed about the Treasury.

      • Beanbags admin

        Hi Juan,

        I think I broadly agree with you about some of the pros and cons of charity vs. CIC structure (with the exception of the bit about changing potentially converting a CIC into a charity which, unless the rules have changed, is not possible).

        I’m not sure there’s a binary split between Companies House and The Charity Commission. They regulate different things and charitable companies are registered with both.

        What the Treasury’s primarily considering at the moment is how to offer the same kind of support through the tax system to investments in social ventures that’s current provided for investments in mainstream companies so I would expect that it will be more like EIS than like Gift Aid – it will be a tax break for the investor rather additional income for the investee.

        I can see the benefits of a Gift Aid equivalent for donations to social enterprises (I’d also support it for small donations to political parties) while also acknowledging that if you chuck around loads and loads of tax breaks to everyone who asks for one, you end up in a bit of a mess.

  5. Another great article David! Really interesting to hear Caroline’s thoughts on such a broad range of topics, all of which provoke such heated debate in the sector. She is certainly one of the calmer, more reasoned voices in this space.

    I think what is interesting is that she identifies a common problem – in our relationships with other humans, we are all really social, whether we’re in the finance sector or social enterprise. But as soon as those relationships become tied to capital, things become much more mechanistic. Breaking free of this self-defeating dynamic is going to be a key challenge for Big Society Capital and others going forward.

    http://slowsocial.me/2013/06/16/skews-mavens-and-mimicry-an-end-to-business-as-usual/

  6. Beanbags admin

    Yes, I agree. Caroline’s right to draw attention to the disconnect between finance and the mainstream economy. It was interesting listening to a talk by Mariana Mazzucato, author of The Entrepreneurial State, a few weeks ago when she explained that the main problem facing innovative businesses (not social enterprises, just any businesses looking to do new stuff) was a lack of patient, long-term committed finance.

    The danger is that people come out of a financial services sector that has completely lost sight of its practical reason for existence and try to impose the practices that have failed in the mainstream economy – at least, in terms of delivering sustainability and prosperity for most people – on the social economy.

    There’s lots that social enterprises and charities can learn from people and businesses operating in the private sector – my view is that, in general, most social value is provided by these people and businesses – but we probably shouldn’t be looking for guidance primarily at the relatively small bit of the private sector that doesn’t deliver significant social (or, in fact, economic) value and currently staggers on, largely unreconstructed and propped up by the governments it claims to hate.

  7. A financially sustainable intermediary providing finance for social enterprises does exist. Co-operative and Community Finance has just celebrated its 40th birthday. It got an early grant from the Labour government – in 1976. Since then it has financed its growth and development from its own profits, absorbing other unsustainable funds, share issues, CITR, managing other people’s funds and being open to newopportunities.

    Big Society Capital has shown no interest in CCF – not surprising if the Chief Executive doesn’t even know it exists.

    CCF combines a hard headed attitude to lending (applicants are expected to have a convincing case that they will be able to repay finance) with a clear commitment to its ethical aim of providing finance for democratically controlled enterprises.

    CCF is not perfect – nothing is. But if you want to develop sustainable intermediaries serving the social enterprise market, a passing acquaintance with the only long term example might be useful.

    • Beanbags admin

      Hi Dave,

      Thanks for you comment. As mentioned to Jeff above, Caroline wasn’t arguing that there are no financially sustainable intermediaries lending to social enterprises at all, she was responding to the specific issue about whether it would be possible to run one primarily focused on meeting the needs of the average (median) social enterprise with a turnover of (around) £187,000 per year.

      The said, looking at what Co-operative & Community Finance (CCF) does, it seems far closer to doing so than most other current intermediaries I’m aware of.

      You say Big Society Capital has shown no interest in the organisation. Are you saying that CCF has approached them and been ignored or rejected for investment?

  8. It strikes me that the idea of a social stock exchange is a good one, if the objective is to ensure that “money flows from here to there and it should be as lean and as mean and as efficient as possible.”
    I have to confess that i have my own vision of a social stock exchange, but it’s not like the one that exists now. It would be underpinned by a social credits system that recorded and rewarded ‘contribution to community’, using time as its accounting unit. Contribution would ‘look like’ teaching, giving, learning – that sort of thing. Individuals with credit in their account would be able to trade their social stock in the marketplace with brands, businesses and other organisations (like local authorities) that needed evidence of social impact or CSR, in exchange for discounts on the products or services they provided (many of which perish if not consumed), so that only the balance needed to be paid in cash.
    Such a marketplace would create value for individuals – it would enable them to boost their self-esteem and get money-off vouchers not available anywhere else. It would create value for community organisations since they would be able to measure their social value and compete better for local authority contracts. It would create value for the public sector since people fixing their own problems would save them money on the delivery of public services and produce community. And businesses would benefit too from a new sales channel that shifted excess inventory or spare capacity without it damaging their brand (and before it perishes) as well as providing them with transparent CSR evidence that we as consumers could understand.
    Yes, this is a discriminatory model. The transparency enables its participants to link entitlement with contribution so that the givers and the takers can more easily be identified. A kind of polluters pays principle.

  9. Pingback: Good Deals 2013: is relevance within reach? | Beanbags and Bullsh!t

  10. Pingback: Private murmurings | Beanbags and Bullsh!t

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s