 I am incredibly excited about our conversation today. But before I continue, a brief background on myself so that you get to know me a little bit better. My name is Kunlea Pampa. I head Client Solutions, a Capricorn Investment Group, which is a purpose-built outsource chief investment officer, as well as an innovative fund manager. We've had the great fortune of managing the capital for Jeff Skoll and the Skoll Foundation for 23 years. Why is that very applicable to the conversation today? One of the hardest things that we had to do throughout that journey was to steal very subjective mission and impact objectives into prudent investment management objectives. And that's very hard to do. But it gave me an opportunity to work with the programmatic side, the philanthropic side, especially the Skoll Foundation, finding innovative ways to be able to catalyze a lot of those thematic areas into investment opportunities. But today, we're going to focus particularly on the philanthropic capital. And I think the title of this session already explains itself. So I want to do less talking and give more opportunity for the panelists to really share examples. Today's session is less about what is it, or more so, let's hill back that curtain and get some real tangible, real-life lived experiences on how to really think about de-risking investments using philanthropic capital as a tool. I'm very sure each and every one of you here today have different tools in the toolbox that you can leverage. This is one of them. And so our objective is very simple today. Our three phenomenal individuals on the stage today will share how they have leveraged philanthropic capital to do exactly what I described. I've challenged them to illustrate their responses through good storytelling, data, experiences, and any support they can give as well. So that's why particularly today, I'm excited about it because I get to hear stories that I probably have never heard them talk about before or they hid from me when we had a little backstage conversation as well. So very exciting. I will just give a brief introduction but also allow them to sort of share their own backgrounds as well. On stage with me is Lysso Pritzker-Simmons with Blue Haven Initiative. Quick wave. Yeah. Daniel Loubre of Foundation Corona and Belinda Morris of Colibri Catalyst. So without further ado, I want to invite our panelists to introduce themselves starting with Belinda. Thanks, Kunli, and thanks very much to the Sorenson Impact Institute and Socap sponsors for hosting, co-hosting the Socap 23. It's great to see everybody back and I feel like we're finally back in action after COVID last year was a little bit stilted. And thanks for prioritizing this track on philanthropy and catalytic capital. I think although philanthropies pockets aren't as deep as government pockets, they certainly play an outsized role in mobilizing capital for impact. And so it's really exciting to see here all these conversations going on at Socap today. So I'm Belinda Morris. I'm the co-founder and managing director of Colibri Catalyst. In my previous life, I had a role working with philanthropy and it was the catalytic potential of philanthropic capital that inspired me, I guess would be the word to launch a catalytic capital facility. So I worked on program related investments and grant making in the climate and land use space at the Packard Foundation. And we saw an increasing need for a coordinated approach to building markets for nature-based solutions. And 10 years ago, we would have thought investing in nature-based solutions was pie in the sky. And now we're seeing it actually in action and I'm really thrilled to see a lot of panels here at Socap focused on it as well. So I founded Colibri Catalyst to address this challenge. So Colibri is a catalytic capital facility that aims to improve the flow and performance of private capital, private investment in sustainable land use and nature-based solutions. The goal of the facility is to aggregate and deploy catalytic capital to intermediary vehicles and scalable enterprises that are investing in nature-based solutions in emerging markets. We believe that strong intermediary vehicles and scalable enterprises play a really important role in getting private capital to nature-based solutions on the ground. And that is why we wanna build this nascent sector. There's a lot of perceived and real risk that we need to address. And the length of private capital is prime to do so. So I'll stop there. Thank you, Danu. Hi, thank you, Coney. It's an honor to be here. And I'm Daniel Uribe. I'm the Executive Director of Fundación Corona. I'm from Bogota, Colombia. Fundación Corona is a family foundation that has been working over the last six decades on promoters, social development, equity, and actually social change within the country that has a lot of challenges in equality. The best way we have been doing it over the last six decades is trying to help build knowledge, tools, and advocacy in a system that has to be building like a systemic approach in a much more holistic way. And from the foundation, we are trying to promote social mobility. And to do that, we're mainly focusing education to employment and citizenship engagement. And on those topics of economic development or education to employment, we have seen that there is a huge challenge on the scale, as you were mentioning. And for that reason, we have been working, I think, over the last six years, trying to understand which vehicles, methodologies, can philanthropy try to promote to develop and to co-create at the philanthropic sector, but also at the public sector, including the private sector. So on my background, myself, I have been working the last 20 years also trying to connect the private sector with the social sector within the country. I have worked at Endeavour, I have investment banking, and last also at the foundation over the last 10 years. And it's an honor to be able to share with Colombia and also the Latin region is trying to work. Thank you. So hi, everyone. Liesl Pritzker-Sinans. I'm the co-founder and principal of Blue Haven Initiative. We're a single family office that's focused sort of 100% of our investment assets on impact investing. And over the sort of 13 years that we've done this, we take a multi-asset class kind of multi-sector approach. We have a large investment portfolio that's in lots of different asset classes and lots of different impact sectors, but really trying to just really pay attention to what every investment in the portfolio is doing from a financial standpoint, as well as social and environmental. And what's been interesting is over the years seeing how our philanthropy and catalytic capital has actually been responsive to gaps and things that we see in our investment portfolio. And really what we've kind of seen is that markets are really great and wonderful at scaling very specific things. And then there are lots of things markets are very bad at and maybe that's where government policy advocacy comes into play as opposed to trying to use our investment portfolio to solve every problem that we see. But as a family office, we've got lots of those different tools. And so really over the years, what we found is sort of taking away investments from places where investments shouldn't play, putting philanthropy there, and then really leaning into areas and sectors and solutions and companies and fund strategies where market rate or near market rate capital is actually pretty good. And so that's kind of how we view things at Blue Haven and try to look holistically and apply the right tool for what we're seeing. Thank you, thank you for the introduction. So we're gonna get into the core of today's conversation. And many of you have already gotten a little bit of a preview. False check, how are we doing? Doing good? All right, I like the thumbs up. Thank you, I appreciate it. So at least over the years, we've had an opportunity to work together. And I really like Blue Haven's approach to the whole portfolio and how you view multiple different tools in that toolbox to be able to solve issues. And you kind of touched on that. So let's dig into, describe the role of catalytic capital to you and your organization. And if you could share with the group, some really good lived experiences or real life example of how you think about the market rate side of the house in forming the philanthropic advice person. So one example I'll give, so starting about nine years ago, we took a portion of our private equity portfolio and decided we wanted to focus on FinTech businesses in Sub-Saharan Africa. I had a microfinance background in the past. I've always believed the most interesting financial services models are coming out of countries where you've got a young underbanked digitally savvy population and mobile money penetration. Like there's just so many interesting FinTech solutions that are coming out of those markets. And so we decided to build a venture portfolio that's focused on that. And originally, so again, this is nine years ago, and we said, all right, well look, I'm based in Boston. And although we're in country a lot, we wanna actually find and support local fund managers who either we get deal flow from or we co-invest alongside of in this market, in this ecosystem. And nine years ago, there were not a lot of local FinTech VCs in Nigeria, Kenya, in the market Ghana, in the markets where we wanted to invest. There just weren't. I've looked back at our strategy deck from 2014 and we had 10% of this $50 million evergreen fund was gonna go into local seed stage managers. And they're like, just we're not that many. So we were like, okay, well I guess we'll go earlier and we'll do seed. Anyway, so we've built that investment portfolio. We've had some exits, we've gained experience and we're active investors in that market. But then over the years as we started to see more local VC talents begin to raise funds, we thought, okay, well one thing we could do is, I mean, everybody knows like the hardest thing in the world to do is to raise your first fund if you've got no track record and you're also in a very nascent market where VC capital already is new and then you're new to it and there are no exits. I mean, it's just a nightmare. So we warehouse deals for first time fund managers but that's risk upon risk upon risk upon risk. And so we think this is wildly important and for downstage like sort of for a market rate portfolio but at the moment that risk is not market rate. So we use philanthropic capital at Blue Haven or at least it's in our philanthropic budget, the warehousing of those deals. The terms are not necessarily philanthropic but the risk to us is. And so that's an example of, we really want there to be more better local players that we can play with in this space we care a lot about in our market rate portfolio. But we wouldn't take that risk necessarily if we had to make market rate returns to our investors. Nobody would do that. And so we'd use our philanthropic portfolio if we lose it, it's okay, it's been budgeted that way. And if we don't, gravy, we've got more to give to the next fund manager. And so that's an example of kind of how we saw a gap inspired by the world we wanna see in our market rate portfolio but then we were allowed to help to fill it because we've budgeted for it in our philanthropic portfolio. And so it was a great also just internally a really fun team exercise between our investment team and our catalytic capital team. And so that was kind of fun to see. Amazing, I appreciate you sharing a lot of those real life scenarios. I think one of the things that I took away from what you just said is don't let perfection be the enemy of progress. You started in 2014 investing in Sub-Saharan Africa when there was nothing there. Now that ecosystem has grown, you're probably in a better position now to pick out who are gonna be some of the players that would actually help provide conviction around the strategy that you're doing. But you started somewhere and you didn't allow that perfect world to first exist before you actually went there to draw it out. Well, and also one of the things that I think is important about this is again, the mindset is actually coming from our sort of market rate investment side. So I don't just want to support any seed stage manager. They've got to win because we're trying to prove that this market works. I don't want to stand up fund managers that are gonna fail. Of course that's gonna happen. But we're really, we're coming at this kind of from a market standpoint, not from like, oh, let's just do a nice thing for people. Like we're coming at this because we want to see the sector succeed and we need lots of proof points in order for that to happen. And so I think that's also an important piece of it. It's very targeted based on a distinct need from our market rate portfolio. Thank you. Daniel, I'd love you to answer that similar question in terms of describing the role of catalytic capital to you, especially in the Latin America region and your focus on more social entrepreneurship and social thematic areas. What are some examples of maybe fun stories or even challenging times that you faced that will be helpful for the audience to gain perspective of how things actually work on that side of the world? Sure. Well, I think that the market development in Latin is a little different at the moment that of course at the States. But it has been very interesting, for example, the topic that we have been working in the last years that is the workforce development, right? Just a sector to give one of the examples. First, we as the foundation, first we understand the philanthropic capital and the catalytic capital as three categories. One, it has to be long-term vision, right? We as foundation have the long-term vision. We have to be there for the long-term. Second, has to be much more flexible. And third, it has to build capacities because when we're talking like in Latam or in Colombia, of course there is a lot of capacity building have to be set up for intermediaries, for investors, for the family offices and for the foundation itself. So it has to be like a much more complementary approach. And on workforce development, what we're trying to do is say, okay, it's a huge problem when we're talking about youth here in Colombia and in the States. We're talking about opportunity youth and there are more than 400 million opportunities that has to be included into the system. And in order to address that, we say, okay, which tools are there? So we start seeing, is there any ed tech funds or there any work tech like new initiatives? And 10 years ago, there were not that many at the region. So we start saying, okay, what could we do to promote different type of incentives? And we saw that there was the opportunity to start using results-based finance mechanisms at the region to try to promote bringing the different stakeholders, the public sector, the investors and the service providers try to align incentives. And in order to do that, we have been building knowledge and practices. It has been a quite challenging journey but over the last six years, seven years, I would say Colombia has been one and Latin one of the regions that has tested the more these social impact bonds mechanisms. Yesterday, I was in a panel where you were discussing about income share agreements here at the States, how they have worked or not, and the challenges. So I think that for us, it's always tried to change the system approach, try to understand the mindset. And the example was, of course, and the challenge is huge but we start taking risk to make the first seat. So Colombia had made this first social impact bond in an emerging country. It was 700 people. It was less than one million dollar deal. But because of that and taking the risk with the IDB and also the Swiss cooperation, now today we have launched four seats, one outcomes fund and actually the Colombia municipality has launched one of the largest results-based finance programs. So it's trying to build evidence, trying to take those risks and trying to think that we're actually building capacity into the long term. Many of the service providers that were on those programs are not much more investable for different type of investors to actually now get into different scale of the problem. So it's trying different mechanisms. I think what we have tried to do is take different stakeholders and give the philanthropic capital to make risk changes. So we were the first investor with other two foundations and currently there are more than 15 investors promoting 6% of the impact on investing market in Colombia is result-based finance mechanism. So it's trying to make this type of bet in order to invite others and trying to see this systemic change into the long term. Fantastic. So system level changes and collaboration has really driven a lot of your thesis and fundamentals from that region. Thank you. Belinda, gonna move to you, right? Same question around the role of catalytic capital, but for you, what is the catalytic role that philanthropy has played when it comes to nature-based solutions in particular? And what does it actually mean to de-risk an investment? Yeah, no, that's a great question. So Deborah Schwartz was speaking on a panel a couple of days ago and she said she defined catalytic capital as being flexible, risk-taking and patient. And I think those three are really critical, and I've heard them from both of you, really critical pieces, but not everybody can be all three. And so I think there is an importance of collaboration in many instances, and I have so much admiration for what Bluehaven is doing where you're actually looking at the whole range of high-risk, two-market returns and how can you get one from one to the other? A lot of philanthropies don't have that luxury, but they do definitely have a role to play. What we saw in nature-based solutions, you know, 10 years ago, a very nascent, early stage, emerging, a lot of emerging funds coming into play. When I was at Packard Foundation, they were coming to us for investments. We saw them as very high-risk. We were always interested if there was a way to de-risk our capital and we were quite fine taking a lower return on our investment. But the challenge was the risk, and a lot of the risk is the unknown. And as Liesl was saying, there's a lot of first-time fund managers, there's a lot of new business models, and there's no way to assess the track record of these investors. And so how do we deal with that? And we dealt with it in a number of ways. One was where we felt they were at too early a stage for anything, there's grand capital available for strengthening their capacity, for professionalizing the fund manager, for trying to improve pipeline, because to be honest, even for these funds, the pipeline is very nascent as well. And so grant capital provides a really important role at that level. First-loss capital is also a really critical tool. That is more difficult from a philanthropic perspective for a lot of folks. It can be part of a grant-making toolbox, but there's a lot of separation between grants and program-related investments. So again, that's where I feel like collaboration comes in where the more venture-focused philanthropies are willing to take that role, willing to take more risk, or as Liesl was saying, with a certain portion of their investments, they're willing to do that. We found that that in many cases, the perceived risk is greater than the actual risk. And so that first-loss capital, if you can dig into what the real risk is yourself and take that role, it's perhaps not as risky as the perception. So as I mentioned, we did a lot of grant-making to professionalize funds. Some of them ended up getting to a first-close, others ended up going a different route. But what was really helpful was the investment in them developing their business model. On the other side, the program-related investment is really important where you can provide a concessional return, you can reduce the cost of capital, and you can enable interesting innovation in terms of conservation outcomes. So I'll give you one example. We looked at a sustainable forestry fund that was commercial, could have been commercial, was already attracting institutional capital, but they wanted to go one step beyond and produce high conservation area set-asides and increase the amount of carbon in the forest through different pruning activities, which was additional costs. The institutional investors were very nervous with these additional activities because of the potential risk and the additional costs that would have an impact on their return. So we were able to structure an investment whereby if certain activities were achieved, the returns to the impact tranche were lower which ensured that the institutional investors were getting their returns. If those activities weren't done, then the returns were peripassue with the institutional investors. So I think there's a lot of creativity that can be looked at with philanthropic capital and whether you're investing or grant-making. Phenomenal. I'm gonna stay with you for a little bit, Belinda, here, because this idea that philanthropists come in early, take that early risk, get things investment ready, and then subsidize the opportunity for private investors to come in later and then sort of make money off of it. Like, how do you wrap your head around that? For the audience and for people who are thinking about it in that way, why is it very important for a philanthropist to think about it not in that way, but more in the way of using the tools like grants and project financing to get opportunities, investment ready so that they get to the point where they can actually scale in the future? So if you could give some real examples around that, that would be really helpful as well. I think one of the challenges is we don't have enough data to really know whether or not we're providing a subsidy, right? I mean, if we had full information, we'd be able to say, well, we can take a first-last risk at this percent and it'll document me. It definitely won't be providing a subsidy to the private sector. So we have to guess a little bit. But in sectors like nature-based solutions where you have, on one side of the economy, you have billions of dollars being driven towards the destruction of subsidy dollars coming from government and therefore leveraging commercial investors into the space and you have a lot of destruction of nature, I would argue that we have to be on the other side. We have to subsidize the positive reversal of that trend. So that's one issue. Having said that, I think it is important to really be able to look at what is the subsidy and what isn't. In these very nascent sectors, I think we're doing a lot of trial and error. You're not seeing private investors go into these investments without a first-last tranche. And so what we need to do is go in there, experiment, I think in the same way that Lisa was talking about, make these investments, look at the outcomes and perhaps it's just a proof of concept that needs to happen. But I think we need to really dig deeper on that idea that we're subsidizing the private sector and really understand the private sector isn't looking necessarily for impact right now. And if we want impact, we're gonna have to drive capital in that direction. Thank you. Daniel, I wanna hear your perspective from Latam, just given the sort of slowdown in funding in the region in general and more broadly from a global system perspective, how do you use innovative ways to change the narrative around sort of this question of first loss coming in and using philanthropy as that tool to be able to kickstart a lot of that conversation as well. Okay, well, I think it has changed in the region over the last three years. One of the reasons is because the conversation started to have much more within the continuum of capital, mainly because Latin Pacto, the venture philanthropy network started and that gave us the possibility to have a different type of understanding the roles, right? Understanding the different type of funding, pockets and understanding how are we actually necessary the philanthropic resources? Where is the risk and where could be first loss? And in which spaces, we are just trying to have a different type of narrative, exactly trying to understand where the opportunities are. We have the event of Latin Pacto this year in Rio and it was very interesting to understand. We're not talking only about bringing philanthropic as first loss, but actually as we were mentioning, to test different models, to try different mechanisms, to actually give the first opportunity to family offices or corporates to understand all the tools that are available within the market to actually move after the first testing. So we are the MVP stage. So we're able to actually promote, see what's happening, how to actually then scale it and then the perfect sector come. But second is having on the same table the conversation of, for example, in our case, the family that runs the company Corona, even though they are promoting sustainability, they are not impact driven, but they understand that the foundation and the family office could see our role to start changing the conversation in the next gen. So it's the first generation and they understand this as a way to include new conversation that could be potentially include all the family and the company size. So it's not only about the risk and also we're trying to be a bridge with the international cooperation or the DFI's within the region because they're changing totally the mindset. We were used to get all the ground resources, flexible funding and they start saying the USA, the Swiss cooperation, Canadian cooperation who are changing this. If you want to continue with the receiving resources of cooperation for development of the country have to start seeing different ways in how there are innovative tools, impacting finance or many others to actually start working together with them to promote the development. So we are the bridge in order to actually get those conversations going and understand that. And last but not least, I think the foundations or the philanthropic has also the role to get the local sense, right? What's happening at the territory level, what's happening at the participants level. I know there have been a lot of DEI discussions within the conversation the last two days, but the foundation have also this task to actually combine the conversations together. Thank you. I particularly like what you said about the continuum of capital, right? There's always a start, but there's always that continuum of who joins after once that kick starts the idea and gets it moving. So Lisa, I'm going to move over to you because you take a very whole portfolio approach, right? So you do see that from start to a little bit to the end, right? Taking looking at philanthropic capital all the way to market rate and seeing how one side could inform the other and how best to efficiently utilize that entire channel in itself. So if you could speak a little bit into what are some things that are market rate and what are some things that investors are just not willing to pay market rate for? I mean, I think it's a good question because I think this term market rate gets used sort of liberally and not necessarily very, like, you know, I think it's what is a reasonable return for the thing you're trying to do? So if you're trying to, you know, invest in an early childhood development intervention, like maybe 18, 20 years should be market rate to see the payoff of that investment. Like it's unreasonable to think that you would see a return on that investment any sooner in terms of productivity or, you know, qualities or dollies or like whatever outcome you're gonna base it off of. But we don't do that, right? Markets are terrible at investing systemically in early childhood development because we've decided that, you know, it needs to be a five to 10 year return horizon. It doesn't make any sense. So what we try to do again and again in the luxurious position of being a single family office that doesn't have to, you know, we're an absolute return vehicle at the end of the day. And we've got a very long time horizon. We try to be more realistic around what is an actual reasonable market rate for that investment and benchmarking it against that. So one of the things with our catalytic investments and our philanthropic investments, we don't benchmark against... So like if I was looking at a concessionary investment and say an emerging market private debt vehicle, if it's coming from our philanthropic portfolio or a catalytic portfolio, I'm not gonna benchmark it against a market rate private debt investment in that market. I'm gonna benchmark it against a grant. So is this, if I spent, you know, a million dollars in grant funding to achieve that outcome, is this investment higher leverage than what that grant would do? And so I think when you move the benchmark, it's like way above market rate, right? Cause it would have been 100% loss. Now it's maybe 80% loss or 1% return. Holy smokes, like that's insane. Nobody's getting that in their VC portfolio. So you've gotta move the benchmark to what the appropriate thing is for the impact that you're trying to have. And then the world sort of starts to open up. And so I think, but again, we can't do that with all of our portfolio, but with the precious sort of grant and catalytic piece and looking at how that assists our investment portfolio. I think another thing as well as like who plays where on the capital stack and is it okay for philanthropy to de-risk private investors? I think things get so fuzzy around who's de-risking what for whom. So, you know, can a biotech VC say that they didn't take massive subsidy from NIH grants to develop drugs that yeah, they'd, okay, you did it. You came in at phase three, like, you know, there was a lot of philanthropy, probably, you know, university funding, all the kind of stuff that has led up to that point. But then at the same time, if I hear another development finance institution sit on a panel and say they are de-risking investments for private investors. And I'm like, we came in four rounds before you. We're a family office, like we're de-risking it for you. You stayed on the sidelines and waited until it was like a profitable company and then you came in, you know, like your taxpayer funded private equity. Yeah, yep. Okay, fine. But just don't tell me you're de-risking it for us. So I think it just depends. Like I see it on both sides and I don't know. I don't get too fussy about it because at the end of the day, if it's doing the thing we want it to do and if the person downstream has more money then can scale it, then they sort of have the right to do it. So I think, I don't know, I don't get too fussy about where we sit and am I subsidizing somebody else's return, I don't know. No, fantastic. Thank you. That example was great in just providing illustration around how best to think about it. And a lot of it is dynamic in nature, right? So you can't really think of it as monolithic in one view. So it's helpful to unpack a little bit of how you're thinking about it using the tools that you have. I wanna flip now to more of a just a broader question. And this will be the last question before we take more questions from the audience. And I'll start with you, Liesl. So if you were to accomplish only one thing with your philanthropy, that would become your legacy. What would that be? Oh my goodness. So one thing that we are trying to get better at at Bluehaven, like I'm excited about our impact investing portfolio, that's moving and grooving. Like I love the stuff we're invested in and constantly finding new deals across asset classes. And that's fun. I love our catalytic capital portfolio and we're also really trying to help build the catalytic capital ecosystem as well. We're working closely with a new fund called TrimTab that is essentially a catalytic capital investment vehicle to try to find lots of catalytic deals around the world and build that as an asset class. So excited about that. And excited about our philanthropy as I've described that sort of tries to fill in the gaps, sort of like the liquid of our portfolio. But where the piece that we kind of have been doing but I wanna get better at is how this plays into our sort of civic engagement and policy work. So things like we like investing in small businesses and underserved communities in the US and building wealth through CDFIs and things like that. And in addition to that, how does that then inform our electoral strategy, like in 2020 for example, and in the wake of Black Lives Matter and looking through all of our investments and what are we doing investment wise? And then we also then focus like all of our kind of campaign money around local attorneys general races in states that have very high incarcerated populations and what's happening there. And so like trying to get very specific around how issues we see in the world in our own investment portfolio, it's not just normal philanthropy but it's political and it's electoral and it's civic engagement and it's youth voter turnout and it's democracy building and how does that underpin all of these other things that we're doing as well. And so that's one area that I mean, my husband Ian's been working on for many years and we're finally starting to like see these two things come together in our own portfolio and lean into that. Cause again, in this incredibly luxurious position of being a single family office and we're not a large foundation that we'll get in trouble if we get political. And so like, okay, we'll do it. Like, yeah, let's get into it. And so that's, I think in terms of legacy, I wanna get, I'm excited that we're using the financial capital stack from philanthropy to market rate investing, but we need to get smarter around layering in the kind of civic engagement piece to that. And we're not quite, thanks. Yeah, love it. But we're not, we're not quite there yet. And yeah, that's where I wanna go. So ask me about it again in a couple years and see if we can get there, yeah. I really appreciate that. And maybe I just ask a question, you know, off the back of that. What do you view right now is one of the biggest hurdles or multiple hurdles that you need to get over to get there holistically? Because there's a lot of challenges when you start to mix political, democracy, civic. Yeah, a lot of touch points. Here's one, like I'll tell you, if you wanna get kicked out of like a family office cocktail party, like real quick, bring up like a wealth tax or like closing the capital gains loophole, like, wow. So like everyone's like, yes, I'll do impact investing and yes, I'll do philanthropy and I'll give all my money away. And then you're like, how about a wealth tax? And they're like, absolutely not. Get out of here. But tax reform, are you kidding me? Like, we wanna do one thing that will like actually genuine participatory grant-making, pay your taxes, like just pay your damn tax. Anyway, so like that would be one thing, but it's uncomfortable. Like it's a very, it's an odd, it seems so simple, but then everyone's like, oh, well, it won't happen. So let me do this like wildly complicated blended finance thing. Like, what if we just did that? But that is harder. Sometimes the simple thing where you give up power and you have to, you know, like it's uncomfortable. So like those, I guess that's one area that I think we could really focus on and it would end a lot of these conversations that we would have less work to do if we all just kind of pay our taxes. Yep. Sorry. No, I appreciate that context a lot. I wanted to ask, do you get kicked out a lot of these family members? Yeah, they don't care for that. Like that's one, I mean, I feel like I'm in a friendlier room here at SoCAP, but yeah, like traditional family office conferences, they're like, not that bitch. Like we know that you guys are proponents of that, but that might be alienating for the people in the room. Fine, fair enough. But like I just, you know, those are the kinds of things where if I'm really putting my money where my mouth is, that, you know, and so I, anyway, and we can complain about how government uses it and all of that, so get involved. You don't like, you know, how government spending your money go run for office, like do a thing. And so I think those are, but that would be like deep systemic change. And so I guess very broadly speaking is that I really want to see more connection between our sort of like political, civic engagement minds and our investing. And if you're talking about systems change impact investing and you're not getting political, you're leaving out a massive layer of potential change. Thank you. Daniel, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the one thing with your philanthropy that would become your legacy if you could think about one thing. I know there's probably multiple things you can think about. Well, no, I got confused. I got inspired. But you're doing a lot of that civic, like you do that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I've been working, yeah. On the foundation of the fourth generation of the family and of course we understand that the main two areas is always building public goods. So at the end of the conversation, it's building something that is actually open where I want to replicate to use it to actually get inspired of what the foundation is doing. Not only within Columbia, but also regional wise. But now that the last years we have been also working trying to work with trying to unlock our balance sheet in a different way because resources are the scarcity mindset on resources for social issues. It's a huge topic for Columbia and for the region because of inequalities. And efficiency, effectiveness is one of the two topics I think that how to use those resources because even though in Columbia if we pay better and more taxes that we're now starting to do because of current government, the issue is how you use those resources. So even though if it's the public sector, it's not the private sector how to actually be transparent about what is working and how to continue doing what's working is something and not and having it to the long term. And in order to do that, saying of course, the novelty finance and the civic part, I think place based investment is something that as a legacy we have to start changing because the context is very, very different from city to city or region to region in many places, but mostly in countries such as Columbia where you have many countries, where you have many realities, where most of the inequality changes. So what we're trying to do and to build into the future as a legacy is to understand in a much more bottom up top down but regional planning or territory planning, place based investments in order to collect all the potential stakeholders, public, private sector, you know, I think finance but trying to see in the long term view of what we could do. So the foundation has prioritized because of the pandemic five territories with totally different contexts within Columbia to start making a bet how we could have a systemic try to approach into the long term and see what do we learn and make it a public good to actually start replicating in different territories of Columbia and others. Now we're working with different partnerships globally, of course, and the similarities that we have from Barranquilla to Mombasa are incredible but we're not sharing what's happening with those two different territories but we could be closer but having also the local lens at the territory level. So I think one of the legacies should be this place based long term type of investment bringing the different tools but also making a public good to actually inspire and share with others. Thank you. I wanna double click very quickly into something you mentioned but maybe some examples of what are some of the very underlying systemic social issues that folks face in Columbia, right? Like, I don't think everybody here in the room gets that perspective on a daily. So it'd be really good to shed some light on some of the very tangible things that you think about. On systemic issues, like sector topics or? Thematic areas, it could be sector, any example? Well, well, most of our barriers we have a lot of issues, of course, on poverty but if you go back into poverty, the education issues in Columbia are terrible but most of it, it comes back once again to corruption and trust and the main barrier within building anything within Columbia's trust and how to actually you can overpass transparency, corruption and that as a basic opportunity to then overpass investing and the basic needs and nutrition, education and others. But I think the trust, mistrust is one of the systemic challenges within Columbia and I think within most of the regions but I think building there comes from collective leadership and trying to build in the different stakeholders as a basic barrier for competitiveness and all the development issues. But it depends if the cities where you see Columbia has been growing a lot on the last 10 years but over the last five years we have been struggling in how to continue our development in the different territory level. Thank you, very, very, very helpful. Thank you, Linda. Same question for you. Okay, so I just want to be totally clear it's not my philanthropic money. We are aggregating others philanthropic capital along with public and private capital but I want to reiterate what I said at the beginning is that philanthropic capital plays an outsized role in mobilizing public and private capital to impact and I also wanted to pick up on a point that Liesl made about DFI's because that's one of our biggest criticisms of DFI's is that they actually aren't taking the risk that they say they are and then they're looking for returns that are sometimes on a par or greater than what we see is really realistic particularly from emerging markets. So from our perspective, I think what I would love to see is philanthropic capital and I would love to see this with the initiative that we did, the Catalytic Capital Initiative which is quite similar to Trim Hub is that we can take that small amount of philanthropic capital, use it and we have these complicated blended structures that I wish were much simpler but they're important as well for reducing risk but use that to leverage the private sector the public sector, the public capital that's not going into these blended investments right now and we would say like, I think there's something like 2% of ODA capital, ODA funding actually goes towards blended finance and we need to see more of that. We need to see ODA capital coming in it's not a subsidy, maybe it is a subsidy but it's a necessary subsidy to achieve true impact. So if we have a small dent in that 2% and can increase it to 5% particularly for nature-based solutions I think we will have an outsized impact on mobilizing private capital into for our purposes nature-based solutions but I think more broadly for impact. Thank you. I wanna, thank you, I got the little 10-minute mark here. So it's perfect because now I want to really go into some of the questions that you all have submitted on here. I think we've had a really engaging and enlightening session where we're hearing actual real-life examples and illustrations of how to think about these things and so some of these questions that are here actually goes a little deeper into some of the questions I would ask to dig in. So Lisa, I think this one's particularly for you around civic engagement. So can you define what civic engagement means as a tool for long-term impact? Sure. So one example of this is actually comes out of a realization I made I was asked to present to a group of family offices around Blue Haven's climate portfolio. And so we, everything from our private equity and debt venture capital, catalytic capital, philanthropy related to climate across Blue Haven's portfolio. And this was a couple of years ago and I think outstanding at that point there was like 112 million or something across and that's not counting public markets but just private markets related to climate. And so we were listing this out and talking about the interplay between these different organizations and some of it is research and some of it is infrastructure and some of it is innovation and deployment and then someone asked me so across all those investments which one has had the biggest ROI from a climate perspective in Blue Haven's portfolio and I looked at it and I was like, damn, it's not on here. It's our youth voter engagement work that we've been doing for 10 years to get young people to vote in midterm elections that has meaningfully given a mandate to this Congress to pass the IRA and specifically like Speaker Pelosi called my husband and said we would not have passed the IRA but for the campus turnout strategy that the organizations that he started has started to move and mobilize and it was a very clear mandate that if they wanna keep young people voting consistently they need to move on climate. And so the thing is, I mean, is the IRA perfect? Of course not. Is it a massive thing for the US and a huge sort of investment and endorsement in our climate strategy? Absolutely. And so the thing is, is that I don't know if that's just Pelosi saying to a donor thanks but we do know that that work absolutely systemically changed voter turnout for a population that doesn't usually show up. And so that connection to all of the work and how it underpins anyone's work in climate, not just our own portfolio but certainly in the US is absolutely moved and mobilized by what that legislation did. And so that's the piece where it's like that's the civic engagement strategy that just catapults any investment strategy that we have in that case in the climate space but really generally speaking. So that's one example of where our civics portfolio really was the trampoline for what our future climate portfolio is gonna look like. That's very insightful. Belinda, I think this question may be for you but Daniel and Lisa will feel free to jump in as well. How are you working to ensure you help companies and ventures develop the blended finance models and ensure that there's access to different risk tranches in ensuring they have access to the continuum of financing? So I think that question, well, we're talking about the continuum of financing, we're talking about companies at different stages. We are looking at, so one of the biggest gaps we've identified is that early state project or enterprise capital. That is considered high risk but perhaps also there's a lot of perceived risk. And so that's one area that we're focusing on is getting that very early stage capital to those entities. And then on the continuum, it's that initially it could be the seed capital. In our case, we're looking a lot at investing in funds. So the funds are investing in the corporations but providing that initial seed capital to enable them to go out and start investing, get track record and show proof of concept is getting through that kind of initial part of the J-curve. And then moving on, in some instances, it's really just being a first mover, being a first investor and showcasing that there is opportunity in these areas. In terms of the blended structures, I mean, I think that's a role where we're looking at a lot of these funds that have blended structures and what is the most important role that we can play in taking a first loss position or is it just taking an anchor position that'll crowd in other investors into this space? Thank you. Daniel, I will give you an opportunity to also answer that question but just to lay on another question and I'm going to paraphrase this question. Do you work with banks? And if you do or do not, any reasons why you choose or choose not to, especially a lot of them who are interested in using blended finance to de-risk before they come in, what is their involvement and how should you think about their involvement? Okay, well, currently most of our programs we work with the bank foundations, not the banks directly, but there are many, many of them working very, very closely with the also resources and knowledge from the bank trying to bring all the innovation. But now we're currently trying to develop one program that is also on early stage. We have like a pool fund of resources within five of the largest foundations in Colombia and also with the support of the Ford Foundation and what we're trying to do is to give much more flexible funding but they could apply from NGOs to social enterprises and give them more grants or flexible lending. But when we're trying to see into the next stages, cohorts probably they will actually need a bank lending as our partner and will be probably the guarantee in some of the cases to actually make sure it continues the funding depending on the stage of the company. So we're currently not to the direct question of working with banks but the foundation of the banks are very, very getting closer to understand how to actually link where the opportunities are, where it could be first laws, guarantees or pay different roles and actually get into the market because I think in our countries, there is the, I don't know, there are not the connections on the market and the banks of the social service supplier, right? So I think there is a lot of opportunities to actually get to the scale where we're demanded if there are better in performance management and internal capacity in order to get into different type of bank funding. So I would say that. Thank you.