The questions raised have given me much to think about and I wonder if before someone embarks into the investment arena they or we as a congregation should have a sense of how much and when we will need the return on our investment. I am trying to ask the question I heard from someone I was talking with whose congregation has stepped into the Impact investing arena, how much could they lose and not have it impact their needs to the detriment of the congregation.
As a cautious person, this question makes sense to me as an investor, that way if we are working in what may seem to be more of a risky or non extractive financing as Felipe mentioned, the intent of the investment is met, without injury to either party. If we as the investor enter the relationship knowing we may not get the return or a return for a longer period of time, are we prepared for that and have other avenues to meet our needs if this doesn’t.
Does mission take precedence of the financial return? If the investment on whatever metric we are measuring ranks highly in meeting our mission impact, does it matter when it returns the investment either at market or concessionary rate?
Having read the posts and materials for this module, I am more questioning if values need to have the higher priority than rates or return of investment. I really struggle with what the balance would look like for FSPA. Also, what networks and partners are the best fit for these discussions. As well as learning how others have gone about this process, what they have learned, how to invest locally and globally. I struggle with only investing locally when we are all connected and there are areas were only local investing wouldn’t allow them to flourish.