Emma Tomkinson provides an interesting aside while WAPO provides an interesting answer, albeit to a question I had not previously heard asked…
When Is A Social Impact Bond (SIB) Not A SIB? Should We Care?
emmatomkinson.com
There are advantages and disadvantages to the term ‘social impact bond’ (SIB).
From the time it was coined it has caused confusion. The word ‘bond’ implies that capital is guaranteed, that interest is fixed, and that cash flows for the principal occur at the beginning and end, with ‘coupon’ or interest paid in the interim. Some SIBs are like this, particularly in the US. But some are a set of contracts and cash flows that bear almost no similarity to a bond at all. So should it be called something else?
PLY: I suppose one of the few things not devalued by language debasement in recent years is “Bond” which still stands for something. “Partnership” is increasingly meaningless hence no business journal sensibly touches it. I would however moderately quibble with the excellent offices of La Tomkinson as bond may have originally had a fixed coupon but floating rate bonds are not uncommon. However that really is small beer here – another excellent and thought provoking article from Emma Tomkinson.
The Last Thing America Needs? A left-Wing Version Of The Tea Party.
Washington Post
We should embrace approaches, such as social impact bonds, that combine private-sector capital and expertise with public-interest goals to produce better government services. Such changes will require Democrats to leave our ideological comfort zone and move away from the idea that government, and government alone, is the answer to our problems.
PLY: I wasn’t aware anyone was asking the question of creating a left wing tea part but seeing the WAPO promoting SIBs is sensible, as this endorsement is something the European left wing is still struggling with.