A thought on @matt_levine’s discussion of social purpose bonds (such as Pfizer’s, which offer slightly less interest than you’d expect for a 10 year Pfizer bond but promise to fund projects that... match general expenditures of Pfizer):
Some investors have mandates.
-
-
The simplest possible version is, if there exists a 10 year restricted Pfizer issuance and a 10 year unrestricted one, short the first (sell it to people with mandates) and long the second. Collect risk-free spread. Pfizer didn’t have to issue extra enhanced bonds. You just did.
Show this thread -
You can imagine other structures which accomplish this. For example, a lot of CSR seal of approval mechanisms which are relied upon to determine whether an asset satisfies a mandate or not basically mean “Do you respond to our questions and not give the obviously wrong answer?”
Show this thread -
You can imagine that AppAmaGooBookSoft probably does not, I don’t know, directly fund destruction of groundhog habitat. If you have a mandate which says that is the most important question in the world, more than investment returns, a capitalist can help you answer the question.
Show this thread -
“Google didn’t answer about the groundhogs? Shucks. Buy my Groundhog Friendly Tech ETF. Guaranteed no destruction of groundhog habitat. *I will happily route your questionairre to our specialist who will answer it in a routine fashion for enterprise sales.* 1.25% fee annually.”
Show this thread -
And the people who imposed the mandate will sleep the sleep of the righteous, and collect the returns from owning Google, less 1.25% annually to continue employing someone who will tell them they’re still righteous.
Show this thread -
Incidentally after you know this is descriptively accurate as to the operations of CSR/etc funds, does that change your understanding of where the impetus for CSR is coming from? Grassroots demand, product innovation in asset management industry to sustain fees, or both?
Show this thread -
Another lens on this which I’ve always enjoyed: if you think the S&P 500 is some composition of beta plus sin, and anti-enjoy sin, you should be willing to sell the sin to someone specializing in sin. Since plausibly you do not agree with 100% of people on values, can sin swap.
Show this thread -
“I want to be long S&P 500 short groundhog suffering.” “I want to be long S&P 500 short the color blue.” “What really?” “Ah, a bluist. Oh well, we can still use each other.”
Show this thread -
(I am using absurd examples here out of deference to the opinions of people who have strongly held beliefs that I might or might not share who would be unhappy if I used their strongly held belief as the named example.)
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.