On the one hand, I believe (as mentioned in the article) most people want to do well by doing good. This is especially true after the economic recession, which has forced people to reconsider their investing options. The "Global Impact 50" is a great initiative that promotes impact investing and enables people to invest in social enterprises. Another thing in favor of impact investment is that most of these are in growing economies, so the investors can expect more returns than they would by investing in (say) real estate in mature economies. The question is will these offerings be able to attract significant investment on their own (without government offering tax breaks etc to investors) or will they be unable to compete with much more attractive investment options like real-estate funds and bonds in growing economies, gold, silver, oil and gas companies etc. Will impact investment (such a noble cause at the heart of it) do well in the long run on its own? (without help)
My question is whether government intervention by way of legislation, regulation,tax sops and the like do more harm than good? Will these laws only entice companies to "apply an ethical screen to their portfolio" as the article mentions?
Depends on the actual laws and the regulations and "only time will tell" are two answers that I could think of!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.