In my book I speculated that, if a goal targeted by a Social Policy Bond issue remains remote, the bonds' backers could issue more bonds, or swell the redemption funds and, by doing so, increase the incentive for bondholders to work to achieve the goal. I now see that this was probably naive, and that there would be a perverse incentive for investors to acquire as many bonds as they could, do nothing, and watch the value of their holding rise if the backers did as I speculated.
So I have modified the original text of the relevant paragraph in chapter 3 of the book to read:
Note that the issuing body could add to the number of bonds in circulation after floating at any time, if it wanted to boost the efforts going into achieving a particular social goal, but this could encourage people to buy the bonds, and do nothing to achieve the targeted goal so that, when more bonds were issued, the value of their holding would rise. A better approach might be to declare the initial bond issue invalid, which would act as a spur to encourage would-be passive investors to become active, or to sell to active investors. If the issuers wanted, for whatever reason, to reduce such efforts, the situation would be a little more complicated. It could buy bonds back from holders, but doing so would reduce the total funds to be spent on achieving the targeted objective, and so would lower the value of all bonds in circulation. People might therefore be unwilling to buy bonds in the first place if they thought there were a high probability of the issuing body's buying some of them back in this way. They would demand some sort of premium for taking that risk. Alternatively, the issuing body could undertake either that it would never buy Social Policy Bonds back or that, if it did, it would pay the market price ruling before it announced its purchase intentions.
The intention is to deal with the criticism presented on this page; that is, the sixth criticism (beginning 'Expectations...'). Chapter 5 of the book is also slightly modified to reflect the same concern.
No comments:
Post a Comment