According to my colleague and friend, Branton Kenton-Dau , human beings are intentional devices. We are here for a purpose, a reason and our human form is a structure for expressing intention. I like that. Every time we act we are expressing something about ourselves even in the most nano way.

So when it comes to managing our money we are faced with the same questions: who am I and what is my intention?

It seems to me that we have 3 ways of using our money: Giving, Lending or Buying.

Giving is the simple act of directing one’s money to somone else with no expectation of financial return inclduing the original gift. But there is a clear intention that the gift should have some kind of impact. Simply this can be regarded as giving money to charity or a fundraising appeal. Your return is hopeful, that some positive outcome or impact will be achieved by way of your contribution. This is a powerful way of expressing your intention. Of course one can also give your time, goods and services for no financial return and this is a more hands on approach.

Lending, otherwise known as saving, is also a powerful tool. When you deposit your cash in the bank you are in effect lending to the bank. In legal terms you are an unsecured creditor of the bank. There is little intention here as we tend to see the process as the bank doing us a favour. But when it comes to peer to peer lending, microfinance or simply lending money directly to friends, the process takes on a deeper signifiance. There is a more direct energy involved and a desire to participate in an outcome. The personal connection to borrowers helps create this possibility. Another form of lending is to large business via corporate bonds. This is akin to saving in the bank except again there is a directness involved. A large business wants to raise $100m and I lend it $20,000. I’m a small piece of that but I’m essentialy helping to fund the business. But there is still some distance there as I’ve probably dealt through a boker or investment advisor. What I am keen to see is more peer to small business in developed countries. We’ve seen Kiva open up loans into the US now and soom we will see more acceptance in people lending larger sums to small businesses. Not so much microfinance as peer finance. What better way to create strong and trusted communities than people lending to businesses they buy from.

The third form of intentional money is the process of buying. This is two parts: buying for ownership in a business and buying for personal consumption. The latter is the world of ethical and values based purchasing. It’s a well developed market and I won’t got into that. But actually directing your money into businesses through ownership is another way to direct the flow of your financial intention. Whether it’s ethical investing at the macro level (buying into ethical funds) or at the micro level (investing in start ups that share your goals and values). The micro level is more interesting because the impact of your investment is greater. In the macro world of stock markets and large companies your investment is not so influential because of the way institutional investors control so much of the market.

We have many choices when it comes to dealing with our money. Each time we make a financial decision we have an opportunity to express our intention. Its a very powerful force. The more we align our choices with who we are, the more powerful our impact becomes. We become an efficient intentional system

As they say money talks.

Somehow I haven’t heard about Microplace but it’s an exciting addition the the expanding world of P2P lending and microfinance. It is different to Kiva because you invest in a security (like a bond) for a fixed term, usually 2-4 years and you receive a return, although minimal 1.5-3%. As I understand it the big issue is getting registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Microplace is backed by eBay which certainly helped whereas Kiva was a start up and was forced into going the non-profit route.

It’s great to have two companies to compare and contrast.

Kiva is more personal. I choose who I want to lend to and can received feedback and updated information on how the borrower is getting on. This is really important as it builds a web of social capital.

With Microplace you are buying a package of loans and so you don’t have that personal contact. Also there is the issue of return. I think it’s good you can get a return on your loan as long as it does not influence the rate being paid by the eventual borrower.

So you could actually lend to the same borrower through either Kiva or Microplace but somehow Microplace can get you a small return on your money. I’ll be digging further to see how they do this.  So far they have been very helpful and open.

In a way the securitisation approach is not much different from mortgage backed securities where people invest in a package of mortgages. Of course we all know what’s happened with those. However i would stress this is completely different in that all the loans are unsecured anyway. It’s also important to note that default rates on microfinance are a mere 1-3%.

When we cut out the banks and go direct we enable relationships of trust to be built. This allows the traditional aspects of social relationships to take place. No one cares if you default to the bank but to default to other people can bring personal shame and other social fallout.

These 2 companies are blazing a trail for the rest of the finance industry. P2P finance could well be the next big thing.

Dave Wetzel, Vice-Chair of Transport for London, writes an interesting paper focusing on the issues of transport infrastructure and increases in surrounding land values. The issue of land and its possible taxation reared its head recently here in NZ but has since had little media interest.

However, its time we really focused on land and its value within the economic system. One of the examples Dave looks at is the building of the Jubilee Line Extension back in the 1990s. It was a marvelous piece of engineering and brought new and convenient transport options to many Londoners.

It also brought wealth to people who owned land and property in and around the areas where new stations were sited. He quotes Don Riley, a London property developer, who calculated,

“..these land values alone, have increased by a staggering STG13bln when the construction of the line itself was only STG3.5bln.”

So this wealth has been gained for no effort (well there is always effort in speculation) and represents a windfall gain. So why shouldn’t some of that have been used to actually fund the line itself.  Dave uses this example to develop an argument for a Land Value Tax as a way of funding public infrastructure.

We don’t need PPPs when projects can be funded out of future wealth gains. This is a subject which gets little attention but deserves much more.