I would make a couple of points on that.
When you look at certain mechanisms in social finance, and the type of structures you might be looking to consider, what you're trying to do is to see what they are complementing or replacing. A social finance mechanism like a SIB is not a replacement for another investment opportunity.
You have granting programs. When you look at it from an investment perspective, a grant is essentially a 100% loss. When you as a government or a foundation issue a grant, you are not expecting any of that money back. The idea is that you're hoping that social good will come out of the use of that grant. Impact investing is trying to change that mentality. Even if a social finance mechanism costs a little bit more, you have to consider what the alternative of issuing just the grants would actually result in from a cost perspective. That's one thing to note.
The other thing to note with models like SIBs is that the way government finances projects today, often it's an upfront investment by government. The way SIBs work is that they're actually investments by a second group, such as a community foundation. I think the thought that private individuals are trying to take advantage of a system of social finance is probably the wrong way of thinking about it. Oftentimes you have large family foundations that want to do good. They're looking to create innovative ways of placing their capital. But it's an injection of outside capital. It's new capital. In some cases for SIBs, governments invest nothing in the project. You're actually complementing whatever other government financing mechanisms are out there.
I don't know if that fully responds to the question. For me, it's simply one additional tool in the tool kit that you can consider.