gwern comments on Who Wants To Start An Important Startup? - Less Wrong

41 Post author: ShannonFriedman 16 August 2012 08:02PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (407)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: buggy 21 August 2012 08:31:36PM 4 points [-]

Second, my concept ... essentially, borrowing money from your future self for something with a postive ROI expectation value.

Economists can (OK, do) roughly value certain life milestones, such as the increase in lifetime earnings for finishing high school (for the sake of this discussion, let's use $500K for that number). They also believe that certain goals (e.g. passing grades for a semester) can be cash-incentivized. So you let an individual borrow a portion of their future benefit (10%? $50K buys a lot of incentive from a HS student) in the present, with a promise to repay that over a very long time period at a very low interest rate (something that works out to about 20% in total repayments, before factoring inflation, if I had to peg it to something for the sake of argument). A website would have a schedule of incentive schemes, possibly scaled by degree-of-difficulty (passing grades being tougher for weaker students, e.g.), and upon meeting the short-term milestones of that goal, and the final goal itself, incentives would be paid out. This could apply to any process that has a {present value of all future returns} greater than the amount needed to repay: reduced medical costs for weight reduction and smoking-cessation, job certifications (passing a CPA or actuarial exam), time off from work to acquire a work-related skill, cost of improving a home/installing energy-reducing features, etc. Yeah, some of those may not work, but I'm sure there's no shortage of quantifiable processes or goals with a positive future ROI. & I can see that measurement could be tricky, but in the school example we could have schools sign on to the program, in the certification example we get a copy of the certification from the certifying body, etc.

There's an additional monetary multiplier, in that the younger version (the borrower) is almost certainly in a lower income bracket than the older version (the lender), and the money is valued more highly ... I'd happily give $20 inflation-adjusted dollars (a pittance now) to my younger self just to go have fun with (who felt $20 was a lot of money), even taking into account that I wish I'd worked/studied harder when I was younger so I could coast more now. And when it comes time to repay the loan, the fact that I am effectively repaying myself might reduce deadbeatedness.

Of course, not everyone will repay their loans, and the payoff in this venture would be very long-term. So who would provide the seed money for this until repayments match outlays? Well: - The same people who loan money to Kiva, not to make a profit, but because they believe incentivizing people is more effective than aid, and if they make a few dollars off it eventually, that's gravy - The same people who give gift annuities to schools (a similar mechanism) - Foundations with money to invest and an ethical dictate to do something with that money - People trying to solve long-term problems (eradicating diseases, improving the education system) who just want their money to do the best thing possible - Alumni of the program who see the value (the same way universitites have an easy time getting money from graduates who believe school was one reason they have high incomes) - People who see it as a Very Good Idea and choose to fund that instead of a non-profit (I understand you personally may not consider it a VGI, but weaker concepts have attracted more money)

Please proceed to poke holes/refine. thnx. -b.

Comment author: gwern 25 August 2012 01:27:51AM 2 points [-]

Isn't this just the same as Hanson's idea on investors giving out student loans in exchange for return from future income, but with caps on totals?

Comment author: buggy 28 August 2012 08:47:45PM 0 points [-]

I'm looking for, but can't find that post ... is there an expand-all function to the threaded discussions? I thought I read all the initial ideas (but not all responses) before posting. In any case, "not really" is my presumed answer, since I think the distinguish features from a generic student loan would be: - there would be a specific schedule of milestones for a set list of goals (which could be set by individual lenders, if this was done Kiva-style). The goal is to get the otherwise-dropout to finish school, etc. This provides a societal benefit beyond the benefit to the borrower. - the perception that the borrower is borrowing from themselves, rather than "the man" (this may come down to how this is marketed, not a functional differences in the lending mechanism, but I think will help repayment rates, and minimize excessive borrowing) - low interest (not limiting the borrower's options down the road, negating the purpose of the loan, as crushing student loans are doing to some folks) - a distinct philanthropic and/or societal-benefit aspect (seed money would likely have to come from people with philanthropic objectives, such as raising graduation rates, or long-term vision, such as raising the number of people with skills to solve a particular problem, or filling jobs in a future industry or industry facing a future shortfall of employees) - this is by no means limited to schooling ... anything with an expected lifetime positive ROI is game for borrowing from your future self

It's more look-n-feel than a business model, but this business would be client-focused, rather than lender-focused. The biggest practical outcome of that differentiator would be that the loans would not be priced to account for risk (plus the inevitable delta for being unable to accurately predict risk).

Comment author: gwern 28 August 2012 08:59:42PM 0 points [-]

If you Google "student loans site:overcomingbias.com", the first hit is the relevant http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/10/its-called-stock.html with comments that point to other people's versions; on the second page, http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/10/college-choice.html is also relevant.

there would be a specific schedule of milestones for a set list of goals (which could be set by individual lenders, if this was done Kiva-style).

Loans can come with such triggers and due-dates. They are written in a Turing-complete language, after all.

It's more look-n-feel than a business model

I agree that the optics are the main problem.

Comment author: buggy 29 August 2012 05:06:12PM 0 points [-]

I do like the idea of creating a decision market to value those metrics (although the inherent bias of e.g. a rich Stanford alum believing a Stanford degree is worth an extra $10M and wanting to lend "too much" money on that basis only helps the business get seeded).

Unlike a Human Capital Contract, we're presupposing the lender knows the value of the goal, and unlike a loan, the triggers aren't to protect an interest ((re)payment milestones) so much as mold a desirable outcome (achievement milestones), and again, while student loans are the obvious application (and easiest to visualize), this is supposed to apply to any process where future earnings or returns are increased by more than the present value of the loan, and where the goal is less likely to be achieved in the absence of money.

Student loans are already prevalent (even if the terms of the loans are so poor that the purpose of the loan can't be met due to sacrifices needed to repay the loan); while those loans could be preconditioned ("I'll only give you this money if you work towards a degree that promises to repay it, even if you never in fact graduate"), I still think that's a far different story than "here's how much money you can borrow after achieving these steps on the way to this desirable goal (or spectrum of goals)" ... where no money is paid even if e.g. the student gets a "C" in a course they needed to get a "B" in, and only learns most of the material in a course the funder felt was worthwhile, and as a result the student has still gained some skills in logic, math, science, whatever the agenda is that's being pushed.

Optics: 'Real Genius' humor? har. But as important as it is to deconstruct a business model into functional parts, a big part of it is messaging and perception ... and while the process of borrowing from your future self (via a pool of money provided by investors) may be functionally indistinguishable from taking out a loan in many respects, I think the appeal of the two concepts are very different. It is actual human beings we're lending money to here (many of whom, by definition, are undereducated), so perception is more-or-less the reality. The fact that the primary debate still seems to be "how is this different than just lending cash?" tells me that I have a "Tivo problem" ... even if it's a great idea, if it can't be clearly communicated in a sentence or two then it's a non-starter. So, late-night infomercial tagline might be: "Do you feel like you are the only person in the world who would lend you the money you need right now to achieve your goals tomorrow?" If that's not both clear and compelling, then this is a bad idea.