10 Favs; 10 Years: The Coming Disruption - Lead It or Lose It

Back in 2011, disruption was very much on my mind -- personally, professionally, and economically. Reading that post now -- in the wake of the current social unrest and new revelations about the banking system -- I wonder if plummeting down the same cliff. The questions I ask in this post still seem relevant and worth asking. The answers, alas, are still a way off. The disruption, I suspect, has already begun. Here is my post from October 2011 on "The Coming Disruption":

I feel like our economy -- our very way of life -- is in a simultaneous state of suspended animation and free fall.  Like a cartoon character that has run off a cliff and hasn't yet realized there is no ground beneath it.

As I said in my talk at SXSW ECO a couple of weeks ago, I don't know whether we're going to go all the way down or we're going to catch ourselves and scramble back up top.

It seems clear we're headed for a major disruption. The question is, will we instigate that disruption or will we let it happen to us?

The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests are indicative of this coming disruption. In many ways, it's a welcome and refreshing sign that Americans are no longer complacent, apathetic, hedonists whose sole purpose is to consume.

My fear is that OWS gets co-opted and becomes a kind of anti-Tea Party movement for the left. I fear that when I see folks like MoveOn.org, the unions, and extreme environmentalists jumping on board and trying to grab the reins.

Partisan ideology on both sides is getting in the way of facing the systemic problems of our way of life.

Our country is failing because we reward people who fail, cheat, and game the system. We bail out institutions that fail to add value to the world. And we let others create the world they want for us.

It's a perfect storm of deeply entrenched special interests, leadership incompetence, and redistribution of wealth. (Yes, that's right, I'm against redistributing wealth -- to either the one percent or the 99 percent. Wealth needs to be earned the old-fashioned way: by creating value and hard work.)

Some are calling for stronger regulation, which would inhibit financial institutions being innovative. Meanwhile, banks sit on their money and make big payouts to incompetent managers who are asked to leave and start charging fees for purchases made with debit cards to squeeze more revenue from customers.

How is that going to grow our economy?

Unfortunately, innovation in financial services is getting a bad name. The innovations of the past decade or so -- much of what got us in the mess we're in -- were driven by regulatory or credit ratings arbitrage, and were increasingly complex, opaque, and focused on quarterly results or success for those who could manipulate the game.

Now it's time for financial innovation that is conducive to sustaining economies – to value creation rather than value destruction, and that drives a new kind of prosperity.

I've been thinking about financial services as an engine of change because we're not going to make real and lasting change – or build a new economy – if money can’t be made while doing it. Altruism is great, but it won't trump greed.

So what if financial services firms clearly demonstrated their community, social and environmental impacts?

What if banks told their customers what they did with their money?

What if customers were rewarded for making sustainable choices?

What if there was a greater connection between money and values, and management was compensated for maintaining or growing that connection?

What if profit and purpose were more equitably connected?

What if sustainability wasn't an add-on, but was part of the DNA of our enterprises?

What if, instead of a triple bottom line, we talked about a single, redefined bottom line that encompasses all three: profitability, environmental health, and social well-being?

Is it even possible for us to make this shift without regulation or with better regulation or, better yet, with self-regulation?

Whatever the answer to the above questions, it's clear a disruption is coming.  We need to decide whether we will lead it or lose it.

 

The Coming Disruption: Lead It or Lose It

I feel like our economy -- our very way of life -- is in a simultaneous state of suspended animation and free fall.  Like a cartoon character that has run off a cliff and hasn't yet realized there is no ground beneath it.

As I said in my talk at SXSW ECO a couple of weeks ago, I don't know whether we're going to go all the way down or we're going to catch ourselves and scramble back up top.

It seems clear we're headed for a major disruption. The question is, will we instigate that disruption or will we let it happen to us?

The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests are indicative of this coming disruption. In many ways, it's a welcome and refreshing sign that Americans are no longer complacent, apathetic, hedonists whose sole purpose is to consume.

My fear is that OWS gets co-opted and becomes a kind of anti-Tea Party movement for the left.  I fear that when I see folks like MoveOn.org, the unions, and extreme environmentalists jumping on board and trying to grab the reins.

Partisan ideology on both sides is getting in the way of facing the systemic problems of our way of life.

Our country is failing because we reward people who fail, cheat, and game the system.  We bail out institutions that fail to add value to the world.  And we let others create the world they want for us.

It's a perfect storm of deeply entrenched special interests, leadership incompetence, and redistribution of wealth. (Yes, that's right, I'm against redistributing wealth -- to either the one percent or the 99 percent. Wealth needs to be earned the old-fashioned way: by creating value and hard work.)

Some are calling for stronger regulation, which would inhibit financial institutions being innovative. Meanwhile, banks sit on their money and make big payouts to incompetent managers who are asked to leave and start charging fees for purchases made with debit cards to squeeze more revenue from customers.

How is that going to grow our economy?

Unfortunately, innovation in financial services is getting a bad name.  The innovations of the past decade or so -- much of what got us in the mess we're in -- were driven by regulatory or credit ratings arbitrage, and were increasingly complex, opaque, and focused on quarterly results or success for those who could manipulate the game.

Now it's time for financial innovation that is conducive to sustaining economies – to value creation rather than value destruction, and that drives a new kind of prosperity.

I've been thinking about financial services as an engine of change because we're not going to make real and lasting change – or build a new economy – if money can’t be made while doing it. Altruism is great, but it won't trump greed.

So what if financial services firms clearly demonstrated their community, social and environmental impacts?

What if banks told their customers what they did with their money?

What if customers were rewarded for making sustainable choices?

What if there was a greater connection between money and values, and management was compensated for maintaining or growing that connection?

What if profit and purpose were more equitably connected?

What if sustainability wasn't an add-on, but was part of the DNA of our enterprises?

What if, instead of a triple bottom line, we talked about a single, redefined bottom line that encompasses all three: profitability, environmental health, and social well-being?

Is it even possible for us to make this shift without regulation or with better regulation or, better yet, with self-regulation?

Whatever the answer to the above questions, it's clear a disruption is coming.  We need to decide whether we will lead it or lose it.

ECO-nomics: Re-envisioning Financial Services; My Talk at SXSW ECO

Last week I gave a talk at the first SXSW ECO in Austin, Texas. 

Here is the slide show from my talk, available on SlideShare:

and here is a transcript of my talk on Scribd:

ECO-nomics: Re-envisioning Financial Services for the 21st Century

A video of the talk will be available at a later date.

Related articles

• SXSW ECO: How to Make a Difference (incl. brief video) (ecoleader.wordpress.com)
• SXSW Eco: Interview with Scott Wilcox, SXSW's CTO (treehugger.com)
• SXSW Eco: Replacing Unsustainable Language To Tackle Climate Change (huffingtonpost.com)

NYC ACRE and Varick Street Incubator Turn One Year Old

The New York City Accelerator for a Clean and Renewable Economy (NYC ACRE) turns one year old this month.

NYC ACRE is part of the business incubator at 160 Varick Street in SoHo, which is a joint venture between the New York City Economic Development Corporation, NYU-Poly, and Trinity Real Estate.

"This initiative was built on the strength of our tenants, the support of NYU Poly and NYSERDA, and the desire of the community to grow," says Micah Kotch, operations director for NYC ACRE. "The credibility of our partners -- the City, the NYC Investment Fund, Columbia University, Pratt, and NYU -- has been instrumental in our success."

Among the first tenants was Ecological LLC, which helps the commercial real estate sector reduce costs through improved efficiency. The firm has been one of the most successful ACRE companies, growing from 5 to 14 full-time staff in a year and raising nearly $3 million in funding. Kotch says the firm will soon be graduating to a larger office space.

Of the 35 companies in the Varick Street incubator, nine are cleantech related; the others range from financial services to social media and cybersecurity. Together, Kotch calculates, NYC ACRE and the NYCEDC sponsored incubator have created 125 jobs and attracted $15 million in capital.

In addition to office space, tenants have access to mentors and other technical and strategic advisors, including advisory committee members from SJF Ventures, Braemer Energy Ventures, and Expansion Capital, as well as programming designed to help tenants attract funding and strategic partners. NYC ACRE also runs a Cleantech Executive program to help fill the leadership talent gap in the sector.

One ACRE tenant, M.J. Beck, an economic and strategic consulting firm, recently became the on-demand energy consultant for the City of New York, while another, Wind Products, Inc (formerly AeroCity), will soon install the city's first building mounted wind turbine using their technology.

Two other ACRE companies have been making headlines as well as progress. ThinkEco's product, the "modlet" (or modern electric outlet) was a finalist at the 2009 CEA-sponsored "i-stage" competition and the company recently closed an angel round.

Brooklyn-based SyntheZyme, an early stage green chemistry company commercializing natural biosurfactants developed by Dr. Richard A. Gross at NYU-Poly, is hoping to provide alternatives to toxic methods of cleaning up the Gulf oil spill.

In year two, Kotch hopes to continue to create new jobs, build sustainable companies, and help them get funding. But, as with most things in the cleantech sector, Kotch says, "We need long-term price signals that will allow the sector to grow."

Meanwhile, as Ecological and a few other tenants graduate, there are over 100 applicants waiting in the wings for space at the site. While not all of them are cleantech companies, the success of NYC ACRE tenants speaks to a good start for cleantech at the incubator.

Even New York City Mayor Bloomburg is pleased with the results of the incubator effort. "I'm already impressed by the ideas developed by the entrepreneurs based there," he wrote in a letter about the incubators to John Sexton, president of NYU, and Jerry Hultin, president of NYU-Poly. "The number of companies at the incubator, the additional jobs created by them, and the sense of community on the floor are all testimonies to your outstanding work so far."

Mayor Bloomberg recently announced the NYC Media Lab, a partnership between NYCEDC, NYU Poly, Columbia, and NYC.gov, and NYCEDC has several other incubators up and running, including one for fashion designers in the garment district and a "kitchen incubator" at La Marquetta in East Harlem.

Related articles by Zemanta

• New incubators hatch in London (blogs.ft.com)
• Tech incubator puts Chandler on cutting edge (azcentral.com)
• Entrepreneurs Find New Way to Grow (online.wsj.com)
• 3 Questions For The New NYC Media Lab (businessinsider.com)

e3bank Reorganizes; Plans New Equity Offering in 2010

Last week, e3bank's Chairman Sandy Wiggins and President/CEO Frank Baldassarre announced tactical changes to their business plan in order to comply with the changing regulatory environment, which will have a direct effect on the bank’s current equity investment offering.

In accordance with the bank's guiding principle of Transparency, e3bank will be closing the current escrow account and will be refunding the full amount of investors' subscriptions with interest before reorganizing and commencing a new amended offering.

"We have decided to withdraw our current capital campaign due to modifications that we are making to our business plan," said Baldassarre. "These modifications reflect extensive discussions with the regulatory agencies and our advisors regarding the new de novo bank process. e3bank is not changing our mission, products or our delivery system."

e3bank currently anticipates starting a new equity offering in the New Year once amending the Offering Circular to reflect changes in the application, and are targeting being able to commence operations by the end of the second quarter of 2010.

I had a chance to catch up with Frank Baldassarre about the changes affecting the bank and the financial markets:

GS: Tell me about the changes in e3bank's structure?
e3: We decided to scale back from having a national scope to focusing on the Metro-Philadelphia area. And the time-frame for regulatory scrutiny has changed from 3 years to 7 years for what's considered a de novo bank, so those changes allowed us to reorganize.

GS: You had an ambitious offering in a tough environment this past year, what will happen with those investments?
e3: We're returning 100 percent of the investments to the investors, plus some interest that was earned.

GS: And what was the reaction from investors?
e3: They were disappointed, as we were, but they also appreciated the transparency. We were living up to that core value. There's been a very favorable response to the way we've handled this change.

GS: What's your outlook for 2010?
e3: We're looking to get regulatory approval as soon as possible and expect to open in the second quarter of 2010. This is the right time for our business model, and our mission will remain identical.

GS: What milestones are you hoping to reach by this time next year?
e3: We hope to be a huge success in the Philadelphia region. Our market research shows that e3bank has strong potential in this market. And we'll have well-managed deposit and loan growth. There's a lot of unmet demand for banks, especially those with a more responsible focus.

GS: Are you seeing the triple-bottom-line (TBL) market expanding or contracting at this time?
e3: We see it continuing to expand, and interest in what we're trying to do has been great. I continue to get asked to speak at conferences, most recently to a group called the Environmental Bankers Association. Overall, I feel strongly about the reception we've received from investors around the world.

GS: Do you think they are responding to the message?
e3: The message of TBL in the financial services sector is resonating; people want to do the right thing and the TBL approach is the right thing. We even had an encouraging note from a banker who was watching our model closely and hoping to adopt some of the principals to his own bank.

GS: I know you can't tell me what bank he was from, but what did he say?
e3: He said, "Keep up the good work!"

And from what we've seen of e3bank thus far, that's just what they will do.

For more details on e3bank, check out: www.e3bank.com.

e3bank: A new bank built for the green economy

You might think now is a terrible time to start a bank. The banking industry has gone from tailspin to government-owned in the past 8 months.

The collapse of one major financial institution after another -- either through mergers or failures -- has made the very profession seem like, well, something to avoid like swine flu.

But for the founders and principals at a new start-up bank that received its charter this past March, now is the perfect time to start a bank. If, that is, you're starting a bank based on a different value system.

Enter Sandy Wiggins and Frank Baldassarre. Of the two, Frank is the only one who resembles a banker, and that's because he is, and has had an extensive career as a banking professional with such regional institutions as Fox Chase Bank of Exton, PA, and First Financial of Downingtown. Sandy was the charismatic chairman of the US Green Building Council and has three decades of experience in the building industry.

Together, they are launching e3bank, set to open for business this fall and currently embarking on a $30 million private offering to shareholders willing to put up a minimum of $5,000. Their goal is to have a large number of shareholders, most of whom have made a modest investment.

"We don't want to have a single large investor who could call the shots and control too much," Wiggins told me in a recent interview. "We want to be inclusive, so we've made the minimum investment low enough to democratize ownership in e3bank."

So they are seeking a steady stream of small, $5,000-10,000 investors through what is, in part, a social networking campaign, trying to reach more people who understand and believe in the idea of a bank with a triple bottom line.

In fact, according to Wiggins that triple bottom line (enterprise, environment, and social equity) is the single greatest distinguishing factor for e3bank. They will couple that with world-class online banking service that "will be unlike any online banking experience on offer in the US," Wiggins says. "Think about it as Web 2.0 for the banking industry."

E3bank will have a limited building-based footprint. "It won't be your traditional branch bank, more like a resource center," reports Wiggins. "A place for public discourse and information about sustainability. A cross between a comfy living room or local cafe and an Apple store."

They will be few in number and location because, as Wiggins says, "The greenest building you can build is the one you don't build."

E3bank won't just be about atmosphere, Wiggins relates. The bank will offer a range of financial services designed to increase their customer's returns while reducing their customer's environmental footprint. They will also focus on what Wiggins calls "values-based financial incentives," such as interest rates to encourage sustainability choices and providing feedback on customer spending habits.

For instance, the bank will attempt to categorize expenses automatically online and recommend energy efficiency options for customers who have consistently high gas or electric bills.

Their "Green Assist" program is perhaps their most exciting innovation. Designed for residential and small business customers, e3bank will provide an energy audit, fund energy efficient and renewable energy projects, and automatically process all available subsidies, rebates, and tax incentives, as well as connect them with pre-screened contractors in their community.

One goal of the bank is to be a community bank, says Wiggins, "but a community bank of like-minded individuals rather than geography." They'll be coming together around the value system the bank espouses rather than proximity to some branch office.

It's an experiment worth watching. Can a bank tow the triple-bottom line? Other banks, such as Chicago's ShoreBank, San Francisco's New Resource Bank, and some community development corporations among them, have tried for a double bottom line approach. And only one, Triodus Bank in the Netherlands, has experimented with a third dimension, although ShoreBank is attempting to enter the green market as well.

E3bank has the potential to revolutionize the banking industry at a time when the banking industry is in dire need of an extreme makeover.

Ultimately, the goal of e3bank is to support the new green economy and a more sustainable economy and, as Wiggins puts it, his will be the bank for "everyone who cares about a sustainable world."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Does size matter? (economist.com)
• Going Green at the Office (time.com)
• Has the Bank Stock Rally Ended? (mymortgageinsider.com)
• Financial firms need historians: OSFI head (financialpost.com)
• What's the Last Innovation We've Seen Coming out from the Banks? Scenarios for Banks in 2020? (futurelab.net)
• Banks still face risks, says ECB (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Building boom to boost schools, economy (windsorstar.com)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">

Business Week Profiles 25 of America's Most Promising Social Entrepreneurs

Business Week is featuring 25 of America's Most Promising Social Entrepreneurs and asking readers to view a slide show and vote "for the business you feel holds the most promise, from now until Apr. 26."

They will announce the top five vote-getters on May 2.

Here's a description from Business Week:

"Social entrepreneurs—enterprising individuals who apply business practices to solving societal problems such as pollution, poor nutrition, and poverty—are now 30,000 strong and growing, according to B Lab, a nonprofit organization that certifies these purpose-driven companies. Together, they represent some $40 billion in revenue.

"Not surprising, then, that they've caught the attention of venture capitalists such as those at Acumen Fund, a nonprofit that invests in companies that try to alleviate poverty, and Bay Area Equity Fund, which backs businesses aiming to make social or environmental improvements to San Francisco's needier neighborhoods. President Obama has even suggested starting a new government agency to help socially conscious startups gain more access to venture capital."

Go watch the slide show of these very inspiring people and their ideas. You won't be disappointed.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Good Company Ventures: A Virtual Incubator for Social Sector Companies Launches in Philly (greenskeptic.blogspot.com)
• Investing to fight poverty (kristof.blogs.nytimes.com)

Good Company Ventures: A Virtual Incubator for Social Sector Companies Launches in Philly

Social enterprise needs access to the same sort of support as the for profit sector. Organizations like Ashoka, Skoll, Echoing Green, Acumen Fund, and Endeavor provide a kind of venture capital infrastructure for emerging and growing social entrepreneurs. L3C and B Corp are beginning to build a framework for a new kind of corporate structure, one that blends social good with profit. And conferences like this week's Skoll World Forum and the Global Philanthropy Forum provide a platform for both recognition and exchanging ideas.

Now, with GoodCompany Ventures, there is a business incubator targeting entrepreneurs with innovative solutions to unmet social needs.

A "virtual incubator," along the lines of TechStars and DreamIt Ventures, GoodCompany Ventures will provide facilities, mentoring, and access to a network of capital sources to qualified entrepreneurs whose business models offer investors an attractive mix of financial return and social impact.

"The program is the first of its kind in the social sector, repurposing a proven venture strategy in this emerging sector", said Jacob Gray, partner with Murex Investments in a press release today. "Unlike conventional venture incubators, GoodCompany Ventures doesn't extract an equity commitment from entrepreneurs, but expects a commitment of time and creativity toward building a community of social entrepreneurship."

Garret Melby, founder of Iolite Social Capital, and a partner in GoodCompany Ventures, suggested that "just as Xerox Parc, Idea Lab and other technology incubators helped create the foundation of the information economy, GoodCompany Ventures will support entrepreneurs seeking to build a socially and environmentally sustainable economy."

Applicants will be recruited nationally via venture capital, social finance, and academic networks. A pool of 8 – 12 candidates will be selected to participate in the 2009 incubator program starting this June.

The program has been developed jointly by Resources for Human Development, Inc. (RHD), an innovator in social finance with a successful track record in social enterprises, and Murex Investments, a "double bottom line" equity fund backed by leading financial institutions.

Applications to the Program are now being accepted online at GoodCompanyVentures.org. The deadline for applying is April 20, 2009.

More information is available at GoodCompanyVentures.org or via email at info@GoodCompanyVentures.com.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Venture Capital to invest in Indian rural technology (indolac.wordpress.com)
• Tough Times Call for New Entrepreneurship Efforts (gigaom.com)
• VC Model Is Not Broken: Insights from Brad Feld of TechStars and Foundry Group (xconomy.com)
• Startup Incubator Adds New Mentors, Calls for Companies to Join (austinist.com)
• Venture Capital for Long Tail Entrepreneurs at SXSW (unstructuredventures.com)
• Echoing Green's Spark Social Change T-Shirt Contest (osocio.org)

Mr. President-Elect, Bring On the New Green Economy, But Be Practical

Now that the election is over and Americans have selected Barack Obama as our next president, it is time to get back to work.

I'm not going to dwell on the historical heft of this event; many people have and will.

Suffice it to say that, regardless of your politics, you had to be proud to be an American last night. We are truly the land of promise and opportunity.

And it is opportunity that I hope President Obama will focus on when he takes office in January.

Now is the opportunity to transform our economy from one based upon greed, deception, and pollution to one of green, transparency, and solutions.

We heard a lot from both candidates about the new green economy, a new energy economy, during the campaign. Much of it was aspirational and not entirely pragmatic.

As he moves forward with his plans, I'd like Mr. Obama to live up to this statement from his speech last night:

"I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree"

It is time for us to get a realistic path forward for the new green economy, which is the best way to turn this economy around and move America forward again.

But it is important to take pragmatic steps within the limitations of the current economic climate.

We need real answers about how Mr. Obama plans to move this economy toward its green future. The goals he outlined in the campaign -- 5 million jobs and $150 Bn -- may not be realistic in the short term.

But in tempering his ambitious goals, I hope Mr. Obama will stick to his guns on going green.

It is important to our future that we have realistic, measurable goals and strong leadership at this time -- now more than ever -- especially on alternative energy, climate change, and overhauling the financial sector.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Barack Obama First African-American President
• Barack Obama: Reaction from the world's media
• Senator Obama the 44th President - Some of my thoughts
• What Change Should The Web World Expect Now That Obama Has Won?
• Technology in the Obama Era

Is It Time to Green Financial Services?

"I'm hoping the financial services sector catches on to the green trend," Frank Baldassarre, president and CEO of e3bank, told the crowd at today's forum sponsored by the Pennsylvania Green Growth Partnership in Hershey.

Green building has caught on in a major way over the past decade. Now, 14 percent of US municipalities over 50,000 in population have programs promoting green development, according to Shari Shapiro, a lawyer with Obermayer, Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel in Philadelphia.

But the financing of those projects hasn't caught up with the building community.

"Until two years ago, I didn't know what LEED certification was," Baldassarre, a former senior vice president with Fox Chase Bank, who is launching one of the first green banks in the country. "It just wasn't something bankers were thinking about."

Baldassarre and others, such as Florida's First Green Bank, Shore Bank of Chicago, and New Resource Bank in San Francisco, are trying to change that.

"Bankers lack the knowledge to go green," says Baldasarre, who referred to "building as the bones and financial services as the circulatory system" of our economic body.

Perhaps the time is coming for the blood running through that circulatory system to turn from red to green.

My 3 Take-Aways:

1. The knowledge gap is a niche worth exploring;
2. There is another emerging niche associated with the real need for a diversity of green financial products and services; and
3. The tipping point is upon us.

-----

Addendum: Something Howard Lindzon (it's Howard's birthday tomorrow, so I'm giving him a shout-out) pointed me to today seems to support the idea of mining this niche. It comes from Roger Ehrenberg of InformationArbitrage.com:

"Investment Banking 2.0 will be the re-emergence of the boutique, the focused, nimble, high-touch firm that was the bedrock of capital formation in the early years of the stock market boom.

"Because these mega-firms being created at the urging of the Treasury are not sustainable. They'll live just long enough for investment banking losses to be absorbed by the commercial bank's larger capital base, after which the best talent will flee for greener pastures."

Greener pastures, indeed.

(Composed on BlackBerry; updated with links 9:29 PM)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Investment Banking 2.0: Into the Future
• We shouldn't take pleasure in the plight of Lehman Brother's employees

Microfinance: How Big Can Micro Get?

To profit or not to profit? That is the question. Whether it is nobler to make microloans with donor money or with investor capital is being hotly debated in the development community these days.

The question surrounds Compartamos, which means "let's share" in Spanish, and whether its principals -- known as the two Carloses -- should be sharing the spoils of their microlending institution cum commercial bank. According to a study cited in the New York Times, Compartamos enjoyed a 19.6 percent return in the 4th Quarter.

Part of the issue is profit, but another is about shareholder return. Will shareholders or investors keep the best interests of the poor in mind? Or are the interests of the poor better served by the donor community, who have typically funded microfinance?

For the record, among the largest shareholders in Compartamos are Accion Gateway Fund (Accion Gateway Fund L.L.C), IFC (International Finance Corporation), Oikocredit (Oikocredit), PROFUND (ProFund International, S.A.), Triodos-Doen Foundation (Triodos-Doen Foundation). Not exactly cutthroat capitalists.

There is certainly a need for more capital. According to a Deutsche Bank study, cited by The Times, "the global demand for microfinance loans [is] about US$250 billion, 10 times the amount that has been lent."

Banco Compartamos went public last year in an attempt to gain access to a broader capital market rather thank rely on the limited pool of philanthropic capital. That got the attention of Wall Street and drew some ire from more traditional microfinance institutions.

Some of the criticism stems from the roots of microfinance as a tool for eradicating poverty. A play like Compartamos seems to take microlending in a completely different direction, which, to some, strays from the mission.

But the question remains, is there room for traditional banks and other lending institutions to offer financial products for the poor?

What if Compartamos had not started as a non-profit (it was founded by a Catholic social action group called Gente Nueva, according to the Times), but had started with a different approach?

It seems like microfinance is feeling some growing pains. Some 20 years after the concept first sprouted -- and only two years since one of its originators, Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank, won the Nobel Peace Prize for the innovation -- its best practitioners have demonstrated it works. Now others want in the game.

I suspect there has to be room at the table for players like Compartamos, as well as commercial banks and other investors, alongside the small "mom-and-pop" shops and the Kiva.orgs, the latter of which connects lenders directly with borrowers through an online interface. The problems of poverty -- extreme as well as low- and mid-level -- are just too great to be limiting approaches now.

As I've argued before in this blog, the poor need better access to the full range of financial services -- and they need it now more than ever.

We need to remain vigilant as big institutions enter this space or we may end up with something like the mortgage crisis on our hands. We don't want people, as microfinance consultant Charles Waterfield told the Times, "making obscene profits off poor people."

But who decides when micro gets too big to be called micro any more?


For more on this issue, read the New York Times article by Elizabeth Macklin, "Microfinance Success Sets Off a Debate in Mexico."

Microfinance: Microcredit Isn't Perfect and It Isn't Enough to End Poverty

"Making loans and fighting poverty are normally two of the least glamorous pursuits around, but put the two together and you have an economic innovation that has become not just popular but downright chic," writes James Surowiecki, on the Financial Page of last week's New Yorker. "What Microloans Miss," is another in a recent spate of articles decrying the hype around microcredit (see my earlier post on another such article from the Stanford Social Innovation Review last summer).

Microcredit is neither perfect nor a panacea. That's a given, but to claim that the vogue around is more hype than real progress seems a tad overdone.

"This vogue has translated into a flood of real dollars," writes Surowiecki, "institutional and individual investments in microfinance more than doubled between 2004 and 2006, to $4.4 billion, and the total volume of loans made has risen to $25 billion, according to Deutsche Bank. Unfortunately, it has also translated into a flood of hype. There’s no doubt that microfinance does a tremendous amount of good, yet there are also real limits to what it can accomplish. Microloans make poor borrowers better off. But, on their own, they often don’t do much to make poor countries richer."

True enough. What microloans accomplish best may be a way to provide a safety net for poor people in countries where access to credit and financing is limited. Muhammad Yunus, the "godfather of microfinance," saw the innovation as a way to help poor people escape the usury of moneylenders.

"But can microcredit achieve the massive changes its proponents claim?" ask Karol Boudreaux and Tyler Cowen in "The Micromagic of Microcredit," their recent essay in The Wilson Quarterly. "Is it the solution to poverty in the developing world, or something more ­modest -- ­a way to empower the poor, particularly poor women, with some control over their lives and their ­assets?"

Boudreaux and Cowen make some good points, many based upon their own experiences in Africa and Asia, and their essay is worth reading in full.

"Most microcredit banks charge interest rates of 50 to 100 percent on an annualized basis (loans, typically, must be paid off within weeks or months)," write Boudreaux and Cowen. That's not as scandalous as it ­sounds -- local moneylenders demand much higher rates. The puzzle is a matter of basic economics: How can people in new businesses growing at perhaps 20 percent annually afford to pay interest at rates as high as 100 ­percent?

"The answer is that, for the most part, they can’t. By and large, the loans serve more modest ­ends—­laudable, but not world changing."

The authors report that "in the Tanzanian capital of Dar es Salaam, Joel Mwakitalu, who runs the Small Enterprise Foundation, a local microlender, told us that 60 percent of his loans are used to send kids to school; 40 percent are for investments. A study of microcredit in Indonesia found that 30 percent of the borrowed money was spent on some form of ­consumption."

In the end, the authors surmise, "the cash allows a poor entrepreneur to maintain her business without having to sacrifice the life or education of her child. In that sense, the money is for the business, but most of all it is for the child. Such ­life­saving uses for the funds are obviously desirable, but it is also a sad reality that many microcredit loans help borrowers to survive or tread water more than they help them get ahead."

Microcredit provides access to financing to which traditional "informal sector" people do not have access. Banks typically will not loan to the informal sector. Microcredit may even help poor people save more rather than get out of debt, by increasing their asset base -- a family with a cow that provides milk, natural fertilizer and biofuel or helps plow the fields is better off than a family without a cow.

Boudreaux and Cowen explain that "microcredit is making people's lives better around the world. But for the most part, it is not pulling them out of poverty. It is hard to find entrepreneurs who start with these tiny loans and graduate to run commercial empires.

"The more modest truth is that microcredit may help some people, perhaps earning $2 a day, to earn something like $2.50 a day. That may not sound dramatic, but when you are earning $2 a day it is a big step forward. And progress is not the natural state of humankind; microcredit is important even when it does nothing more than stave off ­decline."

Even Yunus, whose latest book is about a new innovation he calls "social business" doesn't claim microcredit is enough to eliminate poverty.

What Surowiecki argues for is greater investment in small- to medium-sized businesses (SMEs). He, like Aneel Karnani, who wrote the SSIR piece to which I referred above, argues that "businesses that can generate jobs for others are the best hope of any country trying to put a serious dent in its poverty rate. Sustained economic growth requires companies that can make big investments -- building a factory, say --and that can exploit the economies of scale that make workers more productive and, ultimately, richer."

Some others seem to agree, as Surowiecki points out, that "what poor countries need most, then, is not more microbusinesses. They need more small-to-medium-sized enterprises, the kind that are bigger than a fruit stand but smaller than a Fortune 1000 corporation."

SMEs represent the "missing middle" that "require backers who want to invest in companies rather than just lend to them."

Recently this missing middle got a high-powered group of such backers: Google.org, the Soros Economic Development Fund, and the Omidyar Network have launched a new US$17 million Small to Medium Enterprise Investment Company in India "to create job opportunities and spur greater economic participation for a larger segment of the population."

And this is a good thing. For as Jake de Grazia, formerly of PlaNet Finance China, writes on his blog, A More Perfect Market, "all communities are going to need more than just microfinance. Maybe the ideal more is the nurturing of SMEs and the creation of jobs."

"The real issue," as Boudreaux and Cowen conclude in their essay, "is that we so often underestimate the severity and inertia of global poverty. Natalie Portman may not be right when she says that an end to poverty is 'just a mouse click away,' but she's right to be supportive of a tool that helps soften some of poverty’s worst blows for many millions of desperate ­people."

The question, really, is not whether microcredit is enough, but rather how can we provide the full range of financial services to the poor to which most of us have access?

Microfinance: Plural India Focusing on Micro-Small-Medium Enterprise Development

I had lunch today at TERI with Shivendra Sharma, formerly of PlaNet Finance and now Founder of Plural India, which will include a consulting group, foundation, and educational services for small, medium, and microenterprises.

The purpose behind Plural is "to stimulate new markets by reducing information asymmetries and creating conditions conducive for open-market approaches to work in an inclusive manner."

At PlaNet Finance India, Shivendra was the brainchild behind Small Change, the magazine dedicated to connecting microbusiness stakeholders globally and highlighting the diversity of the microeconomy.

Now with Plural he's launched a monthly eMagazine called Pluralist. The first issue came out today and focuses on the emerging influence of commercial banking and finance institutions in the microfinance space. To obtain a copy, write Shivendra at: shiv@pluralindia.in

In December, Plural announced the first distance learning course in Microfinance, called "Microfinance Passport." Microfinance Passport is a four-month course for those interested in the emergent field of microfinance. You can learn more about the course by following the smart link above. The first series is now completely subscribed, but they'll be offering a second round in the summer.

Social Entrepreneurs: Ashoka North America and Travel to India May Slow My Posts, Maybe

I'm heading to India today after 24 hours in Miami.

Here in Miami we celebrated the new crop of Ashoka North America Fellows, leading social entrepreneurs from the US, Canada, and Mexico/Central America in the fields of social financial services, youth empowerment, the envrionment, and economic development. An awesome and insipiring crew.

Here is the full list of Fellows welcomed in a ceremony last night hosted by the Knight Foundation:

• Amy Bank, Puntos de Encuentro – Using mass media to help women and youth discuss and defend human rights (Managua, Nicaragua and San Francisco, California)
• Bruce Cahan, Urban Logic, Inc. – Adding social values to lending and spending (Palo Alto, California)
• Oona Chatterjee, Make the Road New York – Uniting poor communities to create the change they seek (Brooklyn, New York)
• Gerald Chertavian, Year Up – Placing young urban adults and corporate America on a shared path to success (Boston, Massachusetts)
• Eric Dawson, Peace Games – Bringing children and their schools a shared purpose: leading the way to peace (Boston, Massachusetts)
• Alisa del Tufo, Threshold Collaborative – Enabling communities to help troubled families heal (North Bennington, Vermont)
• Jonah Edelman, Stand for Children – Raising voices and casting ballots for those too young to vote (Portland, Oregon)
• William F. Foote (Global Fellow), Root Capital – Opening global markets to small producers by redefining their investment value (Cambridge, Massachusetts)
• Rosanne Haggerty (Senior Fellow), Common Ground – Restoring buildings and rebuilding lives to end homelessness (New York, New York)
• Kathryn Hall-Trujillo, Birthing Project USA – Bringing women of color together to nurture young moms and their babies (Taos, New Mexico, and Sacramento, California)
• Farhana Huq, C.E.O. Women (Creating Economic Opportunities for Women) – Propelling immigrant women into leading roles in business and life (Oakland, California)
• Esther Lardent (Senior Fellow), The Pro Bono Institute – Integrating civic engagement into the practice of law (Washington, DC)
• Peter Nares (Senior Fellow), Social and Enterprise Development Innovations – Opening the way to replace poverty with economic independence worldwide (Toronto, Ontario, Canada)
• Abelardo Palma, Formación y Capacitación, A.C. – Preserving the culture and identity of indigenous children through bilingual education (San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México)
• Billy Parish, Energy Action Coalition/The Dream Reborn – Employing youth and the underserved in greening our planet (Flagstaff, Arizona)
• Sidney Ribaux, Équiterre – Creating environmentally and socially sustainable communities (Montréal, Quebéc, Canada)
• Daniel Ross, Nuestras Raíces – Transplanting knowledge and culture to create jobs, guide youth, and renew urban America (Holyoke, Massachusetts)
• Omar Rodríguez, Solano Edumar – Protecting Costa Rica’s ocean environment through education and community involvement (Puntarenas, Costa Rica)
• Jayne Stoyles, Canadian Centre for International Justice – Guaranteeing that human rights abusers are brought to justice anywhere in the world (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)
• Atsumasa Tochisako (Global Fellow), Microfinance International Corporation – Putting global banking to work for immigrants and their homelands (Washington, DC)
• Michel Venne, Institut du Nouveau Monde – Reinventing the public forum as a platform for citizen action (Montréal, Quebéc, Canada)

I am heading to India for a selection panel and to visit some of our environment-focused entrepreneurs over the next two weeks. I hope to continue my posts from that wired country, but I may be more sporadic than usual.

Clean Tech: New Cycle Capital, Profits and Social Benefits

Readers of this blog know I am interested in innovative approaches to making social change while making money.

One of my best readers pointed me to a Venture Beat story about a new venture capital firm designed to maximize profits and social benefits. The guys behind New Cycle Capital want to prove that companies that are doing good can make money too. Very cool.

Two Silicon Valley venture capitalists are creating a new venture capital fund that aims to produce competitive profits and also “social benefits.” The fund, to be kicked off next year with at least $50 million, will focus on the “green economy,” as well as financial and other services that help low-income groups.

Called New Cycle Capital, the firm is led by Josh Becker (pictured left) and Benjamin Black (pictured right), both investors who have worked for mainstream venture capital firms. Becker spent time at Redpoint Ventures, while Black worked at Maveron and Rosewood Capital, and was VP of corporate development at Harris Interactive.

Becker has long been socially active in the community, serving on the board of the Full Circle Fund, a San Francisco group of executives that fosters relationships between businesses and non-profits.

Early this year, the two began to raise the fund, after they realized it’s wrong to assume that investments in companies that provide tangible social benefit don’t make as much money as other investments, Becker said. They want to focus on early-stage companies, producing stellar returns in areas such as the ecosystem of services around clean-technology.

New Cycle Capital, LLC specializes in early stage investments. The firm seeks businesses that protect the environment, reduce economic bifurcation, and transform exploitative industries.

Read the full story: Venture Beat

Philanthropy & Environmental Change: Why Gore Chose I-banking over Non-Profit

"It certainly was not for the money," writes Susan Raymond of the philanthropic consulting firm Changing Our World (see onPhilanthropy), since 100% of former Vice President Al Gore's salary will be donated to the Alliance for Climate Protection.

"Rather, Mr. Gore's new affiliation with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, announced on November 12, reflects the evolution, and even maturation, of the environment as a matter of for-profit markets rather than as a matter of nonprofit endeavor."

Readers of this blog know I have been skeptical about the ability of the philanthropic capital market to address the growing and pervasive environmental problems we face. Ms. Raymond, whose opinions I have quoted before, adds some numbers to the argument:

1.) On the nonprofit side and in the U.S., an estimated $6 billion flows to environmental causes. This represents more than a tripling of funding in the last 20 years. Still, that $6 billion represents just 2% of all philanthropic giving. An examination of the grant making of private foundations finds a similar pattern.

2.) In 1998, foundations made nearly 5000 grants to the environment totaling $455 million. By 2005, that had increased to 6500 grants for over $800 million. Yet, environment as a percentage of all grants remained at 5%, and the portion of total grant value only increased to 5% from 4.7%.

Now to the other side,

1.) The total value of the global environmental technologies market is $600 billion, 100 times the size of environmental philanthropy.

2.) Environmental technology and services companies represent over 1.4 million jobs in the U.S. in 115,000 private companies. And those markets are growing as the drive for environmental protection spurs innovation and new technologies.

But "technology is increasingly the least of the market," writes Raymond. "Pollution, water rights, and even biodiversity are themselves becoming financial markets....the market for SO2 allowances is valued at $4 billion, with swaps, puts and calls, and emissions allowances are used as collateral, being loaned or swapped for other pollutants. And pollution? In the U.S. SO2 emissions are on track to fall to half their 1980 levels by 2010."

Raymond goes on to note that "some financial observers expect the environmental commodities market to have a valuation of $1 trillion by the end of 2012."

Payments for ecosystem benefits is also making progress, albeit slowly. Raymond cites a Costa Rican example, wherein "forest owners are paid for the environmental services provided by their bio-assets, carbon, biodiversity, watershed management, and natural beauty. In the decade 1996 to 2005, the program preserved the forests and increased household income by 15%."

And, as I've reported previously, some big name players, such as David Brand, founder of New Forests Pty Limited, and Priceline.com co-founder Jessie Fink, are getting into the game.

This is not to say that the non-profit approach to environmental change is dead in the water. But I think it's important to take notice of the emerging market being created from the intersection of financial innovation and environmental private action.

If it all leads to an accelerated response to global environmental issues -- water, climate change, or biodiversity loss -- then perhaps the market herd will move to greener pastures.

Global Climate Change: Virgin Money to Launch Climate Change Fund

From Citigroup (NYSE:C)to Wells Fargo, (NYSE:WFC) the financial services industry is taking a hard look at climate change as an investment opportunity. The latest entry is Virgin Money (VM), Richard Branson's play to help people with a range of investment, insurance and loan products, including securing loans from friends, family and others.

In January, VM will launch the Virgin Climate Change Leaders Fund, a product to support green companies or companies that are working toward environmental challenges.

"Customers will be able to invest in companies at the forefront of reducing their environmental footprint...without having to compromise on performance," said CEO Jayne-Anne Gadhia in a statement.

GLG Partners LP, the largest independent alternative asset manager in Europe, will advise the fund.

"The Virgin Climate Change Leaders Fund provides investors the unique ability to combine a commitment to environmentally sound investing with the competitive advantages of the GLG Partners investment process," said Ben Funnell, a GLG co-founder.

Virgin Money is a subsidiary of Virgin Group.

For more on Virgin Money, read this article from the Times of London.