it's a fascinating idea! I'm trying to better understand the Bank of Nature approach and so please forgive what may be a stupid question.....
I think i understand the core philosophy - acting for, or even as, Nature, and seeking reparations for corporate externalities historically freeloaded onto ecosystems, funding recovery and restoration projects and building a more ecologically sustainable global business model.
But by shifting the interpretation of fiduciary duty to include these investments, as a necessity, or an obligation, won't there be an internal incompatibility created with the 'no net loss/preferably growth' requirements of the fund in terms of cash value? Many, perhaps most, repair and restore projects and programmes will be net costs on the fund because they are not designed to make an economic return, and in fact they will be operating quite rightly as a sort of debt repayment scheme to Nature. Will the balancing out of fiduciary actions within a fund end up putting pressure on these ecological interventions to generate profit, or at least reduce costs to net zero? This then starts to feel as if it is on the road to just designing new tradable asset classes under a Nature brand? I'm not sure that i've really understood the whole picture properly!
Nature Bank would make a good companion to the new asset class of Natural Asset Companies - coming to you soon via IEG & NYSE
https://www.intrinsicexchange.com
it's a fascinating idea! I'm trying to better understand the Bank of Nature approach and so please forgive what may be a stupid question.....
I think i understand the core philosophy - acting for, or even as, Nature, and seeking reparations for corporate externalities historically freeloaded onto ecosystems, funding recovery and restoration projects and building a more ecologically sustainable global business model.
But by shifting the interpretation of fiduciary duty to include these investments, as a necessity, or an obligation, won't there be an internal incompatibility created with the 'no net loss/preferably growth' requirements of the fund in terms of cash value? Many, perhaps most, repair and restore projects and programmes will be net costs on the fund because they are not designed to make an economic return, and in fact they will be operating quite rightly as a sort of debt repayment scheme to Nature. Will the balancing out of fiduciary actions within a fund end up putting pressure on these ecological interventions to generate profit, or at least reduce costs to net zero? This then starts to feel as if it is on the road to just designing new tradable asset classes under a Nature brand? I'm not sure that i've really understood the whole picture properly!
thanks,
Ian Boyd