Sure. I think the first point I'd like to make is that a social impact bond shouldn't be thought of as a blunt instrument that will solve a social problem. The core principle of a social impact bond is to actually wrap support around individuals and give them the support they need in order to achieve a better life, or to advance them in some way, shape, or form. I think that if a bond is designed without taking into consideration those unintended consequences or seeks to game the system for the betterment of an investor, that's a poorly designed bond or partnership agreement.
I think it's important for us to make sure that the right intentions behind using this instrument are put forth at the outset. If that happens first, then we can think about the social issue and the best approach to tackling it and determine whether or not a social impact bond is one of the tools we want to use. I think we should be very frank when it's not, and not try to just force it down that pathway.
As Don mentioned, I haven't met an investor who's seeking to commoditize anybody for the profit purpose. Don has mentioned his investors are in it for the social impact first, for the betterment of those the project is working for. I hope it stays that way as this tool matures, and if there is more money floating around, maybe that unintended aspect of the investment sediment might creep in, but I'm hoping that it doesn't.
I think it starts in the proper design of the tool.