Comments for Panahpur

Comment on About by Oliver Bates

Oliver Bates — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:02:44 +0000

Dear Sirs

I am writing to seek the Trust’s permision to include a paragraph on Panahpur and their move to invest 100% of it’s assets into social investments. This paragraph will be published within the Sarasin & Partners Compendium of Investment and is designed to provide charity trustees with guidance on investment and future trends, in particular the consideration of social investment.

Please can you respond as soon as possible. The information used will be as per your website, and the HM Treasury Feb 2011 publication.

Yours sincerely

Oliver Bates
Senior Associate Partner
Sarasin & Partners
0207 038 7193 – Direct line

Comment on Is Freedom Bankable? by Resonance Limited (@resonanceltd)

Resonance Limited (@resonanceltd) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:02:21 +0000

James Perry is astute as ever. Hester’s bonus debate is a side issue, like a sticking a small plaster on someone with 90% burns.

Comment on Stop Bellyaching About Bankers (and grow up) by Is Freedom Bankable? « Panahpur

Is Freedom Bankable? « Panahpur — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:03:06 +0000

[...] bonus issue has been covered here before. This analysis of the problem and recommended solution remains my view. But continued failure to address causes in [...]

Comment on I Think We May Have Lost Polly by mikeriddell62

mikeriddell62 — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:12:43 +0000

I think your comments are an excellent response. I suspect that Polly T’s gripe emanates from the track record of Sir Ronald. He made his dough on Venture Capital, or Private Equity, and is more than associated with the kind of crony capitalism that is bringing the world’s economy to a grinding halt. That isn’t to say he’s to blame, but one can see why some might be suspicious of Social Impact Bonds and the question of “whats in it for him and his cronies”?

You get the gist.

Now that he and his brigade are in charge of Big Society Bank, he has a chance to set the record straight by transparently revealing how and why money is allocated to certain projects, and not to others. Revealing the decision making process makes it easier for entrepreneurs or others tempted to pitch for the monies to decide on their chances of success if the criteria for success and failure is more widely published.

The worry that Tonybee has coming from the left (as many social entrepreneurs do) is that Cohen and his chalk-striped brigade of reformed financiers are just a bunch of wolves in sheeps clothing.

Sir Ronald and SF need – in my opinion at least – to do more to prove that they are to be trusted with our ideas and energies.

@mikeriddell62

Comment on A New Year’s Resolution for our Politicians? by mikeriddell62

mikeriddell62 — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:56:41 +0000

Presumably your comment relates to the volte-face on the feed-in tarrif. If so, Amen to you for spelling out the damage done to investors and small businesses alike.

On another note, 2012 is Wigan’s year to show the UK how behaviour change can be systemised. Our work with NESTA is really exciting since it’s scaleable. The problem with our society and our economy, is that the incentives are wrong. They motivate people to make the wrong choices. Give people the incentive to make the right choices and society will look after itself.

Peace, love and understanding for 2012.

@mikeriddell62

Comment on Hope and Joy by Paul Blyth

Paul Blyth — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:13:23 +0000

blimey what a film! …. knocked the wind out of me … I did not “learn” anything new, but it is pretty hard hitting stuff and very moving and inspirational, thank you

Comment on Will Social Investment be “Collateral Damage” in the Feed-in-Tariff Review? by Resonance Limited (@resonanceltd)

Resonance Limited (@resonanceltd) — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:10:59 +0000

This has echos of the Greek government deciding to call a referendum. The one bit of the economy that actually seems to be working well is the one bit the government in its infinite wisdom has decided to cripple. I have no problem with them changing the tariff as planned in April 2012, but bringing it forward to 12 December is political suicide. It makes a mockery of quantitative easing and the great innovations programmed around Payment by Results because it shows unequivocally that the Government is not to be trusted.

I liken this to a a 200m sprint, where 150m into the race, just as the competitors gear up for the final push, the official with the starter gun announces to the crowd and competitors that he is considering the merits of blowing off the right leg of all the competitors as they pass the 170m point.

So much for creating a stable economic base on which to build confidence. Heads should roll, but for now they just need to pull the consultation and relaunch it clear that the date is back at 31 March 2012.

Daniel Brewer

Comment on Will Social Investment be “Collateral Damage” in the Feed-in-Tariff Review? by Beat the Feed In Tariff solar panels deadline

Beat the Feed In Tariff solar panels deadline — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:15:01 +0000

This is a real kick in the teeth for communities, consumers, for the industry and for the UK’s green energy targets.

We would urge you to add your voice to the growing campaign against these proposals – in particular to that December deadline which we believe is totally unfair to both those working in the industry and to consumers.

Comment on GRANTS – total loss of financial capital by Paul Blyth

Paul Blyth — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:41:24 +0000

Like it!

Comment on I Think We May Have Lost Polly by A Social Impact Bond For Liverpool? | Andrew McGuirk

A Social Impact Bond For Liverpool? | Andrew McGuirk — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:46:20 +0000

[...] Plus the simple fact that we do need to do LESS of what has not worked in the past and (or at least try to) do MORE of what may work in the future. [...]