 For those of you who were here at the start of the day today, you know that a lot of our theme this morning is about breaking the rules, in a sense, about how is the conversation shifting. And I couldn't be more delighted to have my colleagues with me to talk about something that we're calling dropping the discount talk. I have with me today Yasmin Saltuk from JP Morgan Chase, James Perry from the Panipur Foundation, and Amit Sate from Prudential. As you can see, this is a diverse group of individuals. But I can attest to the fact that each of them comes with a deep experience as practitioners in impact investing. And I would also venture to say some fairly deep knowledge of what it means to shift the conversation when it comes to investing for a sustainable future. So without further ado, and starting with Yasmin, we're going to do some introductions. In a couple of their cases, they have some slides or presentations to go along with those introductions. And then I'm going to take us through a series of discussion questions. If we stay a relatively small audience, I'll probably shift to questions among us all faster. If people start trickling in and the audience grows larger, I'll sort of play it as it goes. So with that, if we can cue to Yasmin, maybe an introduction. Thanks, Penelope. Good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure to be here. So my name is Yasmin Saltik. I'm the director of research for the JP Morgan social finance team. And just as a way of background, if you're not familiar, the social finance team at JP Morgan produces research, makes investments with JP Morgan Capital, and has a client advisory service all focused on the impact investment market. So we're very excited to be a part of this panel, in particular, because we've just published on Monday a new research piece, which is here and available by the coffee, called a portfolio approach to impact investments. And this really was driven partially by a conversation that we started seeing with clients and with colleagues like Omid and James, who are here on stage with me. I shipped in that conversation from philosophical, broad, cross-sector debates about whether or not a trade-off is required in this market to, well, does that matter when we're making day-to-day investment decisions? Shouldn't we just assess each investment opportunity as it stands? And so this research is really trying to deliver a framework for setting targets, assessing investment opportunities, aggregating the portfolio profile, and then comparing that back to your set of targets across the three dimensions that we all care about, risk, return, and impact. And so part of this work was informed by our own investment experience. And part of it was formed by the investment experience of the likes of Prudential and over 20 other institutional leading impact investors who have been doing the work of the investments on the ground and really trying to focus on what are those interventions delivering in terms of economics, as opposed to trying to answer what is at the end of the day, an intractable question. To try and answer whether or not there's a trade-off between return and impact is such a broad spectrum of investment opportunities across instrument types, region sectors. It's an impossible question to answer. So we're really trying to shift the conversation. And actually, we're getting a lot of positive response to that, to decide what intervention you want to pursue, and then check the economics of that, and base your return expectations off of that. So I just wanted to share with you some of the key findings here. And this is just an overview of the structure of the report. So what we've learned from our own experience in managing our portfolio and from talking with these other organizations is that one of the first stages of building a portfolio is to actually define your parameters. So figure out organizationally where you're going to house the portfolio. That's actually a really important question for everyone. It sounds obvious and easy at first, but actually thinking about how all these different organizations approach setting up the team. And who will it be? Will it be a separate team that just focuses on this, like JPMorgan Social Finances? Or will it be a hub-spoke partnership between a kind of impact partner and then the traditional investment portfolio managers? Or will the whole institution be delivering impact through their investments? And then once that is determined, there needs to be an impact thesis, well-defined in order to set the scope in this, again, very broad universe of opportunities. And then once that impact thesis is defined alongside of that, you need to set some financial parameters or parameters that at least drive the financial performance, like which geography are you going to be focused on? Will you have a focus or will it be global? Which sectors? Which types of instruments? So with that groundwork in place, the next step is for an investor to set some targets. And what we really wanted to accomplish with this framework here was the same that modern portfolio theory did for traditional investing. So if you think about the outcome of modern portfolio theory was essentially this efficient frontier concept. It's a really simple picture at the end of the day, and it distills a lot of information, multiple dimensions of information onto a simple two-dimensional graph. That's the traditional efficient frontier for traditional investments. In this sector, we have three dimensions. So we need a three-dimensional graph. And so what we've done is just a simple one. It's just a triangle, basically. And what we've done on this page is we've mapped our own social finance portfolio targets across the spectrum. So on each of those axes, you have a range within which you hope to be. You've set your targets for return risk and impact and actually return may be the easy one because that's easy to quantify. Risk, a lot of people use a high, medium, low kind of scoring. And impact for us, for example, we have a scorecard. So all of our investments get scored between zero and five. So we actually quantify that as well. So we can actually map our target portfolio, and we've just illustrated what some other portfolios might look like to contrast that. And then the value of having set those targets is when you assess individual opportunities, these are hypotheticals. You can compare them either to your target or you can compare them in an aggregate to your target. So if you had three individual opportunities like these, you could aggregate them either by overlaying them which may be valuable if it's a small portfolio and you wanna see how the respective parameters relate across the whole portfolio or you can simply aggregate them with an average or you can wait binational with an average. And then what's really nice is you can bring that back to your target and see is my portfolio in line with my target? And if it is great, if it's not, then you know in which direction you're skewed and you know that the next opportunity you look at should pull you back in that direction. So this is simple in three dimensions. It can be made more complex by simply breaking out each of those into more components. So the idea here is really to be a template. It's not necessarily that everyone will use that simple framework, but rather that it's a customizable framework depending on how nuanced or how simplified you wanna be. And if you want to, you can put axes, you can label the axes with numbers and be really quantified. If you don't want to do that, you can just have relative pictures and it's more open. But really that the point of this work is to bring us back to the individual investments, assessing them against targets that we set and really trying to focus on the performance of the interventions and the economics that they can deliver. Thank you very much. The, for those of you who've been sitting with us for the last several days, I don't know if you're having the same reaction that I am, but one of the reactions or observations I've been having is that to a certain degree we have to see ourselves as going in cycles as we move towards whether you believe this is a convergence of market places or perhaps the development of a new economy. One thing for sure is sometimes we get to those places where we have to sort of start underthinking instead of overthinking. And when I was thinking about Yasmin coming and presenting her research as someone who's always slightly allergic to research, I was thinking, will I absorb this? Will I understand it? Or will I want to sort of continue to sort of follow my instinct? And this first of all makes a great deal of sense to me and also a lot of what we've been hearing over the last few days is the need to set impact goals and meet them. In other words, if we're gonna translate all of this work into action and to scale, we have to find framing mechanisms. And so I think a lot of what you're observing is partly through your client's observations to you is you're seeing some framing mechanisms coming out that are new. Amit, I'm gonna turn it to you. Thank you, Penelope. It's very hard to follow a presentation with these many pretty graphs. So I decided not to. So I wanted to talk a little bit about what we do over at Prudential and sort of some of its implications for this conversation. I'm running Prudential Social Investment Portfolio and one of the ways in which I think we're relatively unique in this space is we've been around since 1976. So to date we've invested, I think, over $1.5 billion into social investments, have a current portfolio of about $350 million. When I joined, I assumed that was actually one of the smaller portfolios for the large institutions and was sort of dismayed to realize it was not. And I think part of the lessons we've had in terms of managing that is, one, on this sort of conversation about risk and return. I mean, my experience with it has always been that it's unnecessarily academic. There are absolutely hurdles towards getting more investment money into anything that's new. But to sort of frame that conversation around this idea that oh, there's a trade-off to risk and return does not seem like the right dimension to have that conversation. If you look at, and part of that's I think the unique space we're in as a, right now here in 2012, which is that over the last 10, 12 years the stock market really hasn't done anything for anyone, so if that's a zero or a negative return, I promise you I can beat that. I hope there's no lawyers here. If you're looking at bond yields, I think Mexico just issued a 100-year bond that priced at under 6%. I would imagine that most of the social entrepreneurs in this room are less likely to default in the next 100 years, and could probably do with 6% capital. So it seems like we've got enough data points out there in the ecosystem that suggests that capital is cheap, things that are vanilla are even cheaper, but that are not really anchored to any true sort of academic exercise around risk and return. So that's sort of one observation I think we've made in that if we just get away from that conversation, I think there's some value there. It's true though that I also think that part of what that conversation has sort of had a genesis in is a lot of people who have fiduciary duties, institutional duties, share all these judgment rules. Again, I think the evidence suggests that people under those judgment rules have been able to make lots of bad judgments, lots of really bad judgments, and lots of obviously bad judgments at the time without incurring any liability. And it's, to me I find people relying on those, I think, trying to make excuses for why they can't overcome institutional hurdles. Things that are new and risky put people at risk, and that's why people choose not to do that. And I think to sort of dress that up in an artificial conversation seems misleading. Let's see. And then the third point here, and I think this is sort of the joy of working on this portfolio for a large insurance company, is that part of what happens, at least in my experience, is that flexible capital is a hell of a lot more valuable than cheap capital in this ecosystem. And in these slides, I don't know that we talk enough about all of the other dimensions on which you can get a legitimate return and make your product very attractive to people on the other side of the table. So things like tenure, things like disbursement flexibility, the window in which to draw down funds. I mean, there's so many different variables, I think that you can play with, especially in this sort of new and emerging economy, upside payments. I mean, part of this conversation is that, if we are in this sort of new economy, is the right structure for every deal, either debt or equity? Are they blended structures? Are they taking some time to figure out where at the end of the day, I think there's so many more opportunities to find attractive transactions just by playing with the other variables. And I think those are three big observations around sort of this conversation. I really appreciate those introductory remarks. As someone who used to raise capital for funds, I'm very much resonated with what you said when you were talking about the difference between sort of using the institutional or kind of obligations or responsibilities as an excuse for not going to a place in the conversation that might be difficult for either party versus all the ways in which institutions and others, many of us have made decisions over the years that may have been bad decisions financially, whatever the sort of framework you're supposed to be around them, God bless you. And I quickly looked online this morning to see what the latest venture capital returns were for the last 10-year period to see if I could find how much farther they had dropped as more of the maturity has taken place. And I know some of you in the audience probably know the answer better than me, but I think it's around 5% maybe or lower in terms of what venture capital has returned in the last 10-year period. But the reason I'm bringing it up is not to make that observation so much as to say that I confess that I personally many times wanted to say to a Prudential or a JP Morgan or any other institution from whom I was raising capital, well, what the hell do you think market rate is anyway? But it was always very difficult to say because I was always in a conversation about something where I felt like we were all, we all knew we were in a conversation that was shifting, but when you're playing a role about raising capital or allocating capital, often you don't feel comfortable admitting to the fact that the conversation is shifting. So this is the real world in terms of how we take this morning's earlier conversation about the fact that we made all of this capital market stuff up ourselves, we're the humans who made it, so we can change it, but this is some of what happens when you start to try to change it. James, over to you. Thanks, I'm James Perry from Panapur and actually in terms of trying to explain how we see things because we do see things slightly differently, we actually have a short film, which I think we can show now. Being persuaded to spend money we don't have on things we don't need to create impressions that won't last on people we don't care about. I would suggest the most reckless game of roulette with the future inheritance of those who've come after us. Scenes of people looting, vandalising, thieving, robbing. Spending cuts are coming and if you work in the public sector brace yourself. Because the legacy we've been left is so bad, the measures that we need to deal with it will be unavoidably tough. I watched that movie the first time when he sent it to me and then thinking this morning Michelle Long was reminding us all that the purpose of capital, the purpose of money, is to create value. And I think your film reminds us of that, but many more things as well. I know you have kind of an interesting framing for how you began to think differently about investing. Can you quickly describe that for all of us? Yeah, I mean I suppose we are a philanthropic foundation. So we have social goals and we have capital to achieve those social goals. And the paradigm that we were told that we must embrace was to put that capital to work in financial markets to deliver an exclusively financial outcome and to take the income from that capital to give away to charities. But we saw that there were many disalignments in society between the way that capital markets were operating. Government operating 45% of GDP in the UK, £693 billion, which it would spend for social outcome with no financial characteristics at all, just pure 100% loss if you like. And then charities which had no access to capital. And we saw these three players in society, business, government and charity, operating in disalignment. And we saw that if one was able to combine one's material needs from the capital, which are perfectly legitimate with our social goals as philanthropists and in some ways if government could embrace a similar kind of idea, then we could align interests in society in a new way. So that's really what we were, what the thinking that underpinned our entry into impact investment. I know when I was talking to a good friend of mine on the East Coast who has transformed his entire family offices work, much like you have. One of the things that he said to me was, we did okay before, but we're doing so much better now. And he meant financially, he meant from the standpoint of impact, he meant from the standpoint of the motivation of his family to all be working together. Do you, have you, can you tell us, have you observed some of the same kinds of shifts in the way in which you're working as you've continued down this path? I think that, you know, this issue of return is really important and some things will not make a return, but they can have really massive social impact. And we need to find a way of operating capital from minus 100% return through to 10X return in a great financial investment, which might have very positive social outcomes. But that spectrum really is that range and a narrow focus on returnable capital with a certain minimum hurdle rate of return will close the world to us in terms of what's possible. And we found that the more we thought like that and the more we've engaged with other people, we have found that, for example, government are starting to be prepared to enter the conversation where they can achieve their goals and they can enable us to operate our capital in a way that's sustainable to achieve our goals as well. So by working together we can have, you know, just a multiple of million times more banks for our buck. That's me imagining that there are many, many clients of the bank that are James or like James who are shifting their conversation. I think about what we were talking about with Omid about the institutional will to actually change as opposed to regulatory or other kinds of obligations that keep you from changing. As you sort of think about that as you're looking at the research that you've created, what's the best place for an institution like J.P. Morgan to start to shift? How do you really start to create a massive shift from within an institutional framework? I'm gonna provoke you a little bit because for a lot of us in the room that's, we look at these institutions and we respect how difficult it is for them to move. So how do you start to create shifts from within? I'm gonna ask Omid some of the same question. I think it comes, first of all I think it's happening at the right pace. We're not racing ahead and I think that's the right thing. And that's partially because we need to educate ourselves and be thoughtful about the way we pursue this growth. And it's partially because there are so many components to building this sector and this market that need to be growing at the same pace together. And so I think we try and do that by building our own portfolio to help assess what the pipeline of opportunities is and then the client advisory and research sides liaise with the clients to figure out what the demand for those opportunities are and matching that at the right pace is really critical. But we do a lot of internal education and work and getting senior managers on board and the great thing is that it makes sense to them because the clients are asking for it. The clients are asking for it, yeah. I mean one of the things that I think about when I think about an institution the size of Prudential is something that James actually referred to which is for example, most of us around the world think of these large corporations and institutions as having a bully pulpit that some of us don't have as individuals and often that bully pulpit is at the policy level, it's at the government level. I mean if the chief executive of a Prudential or JP Morgan is talking to our government or any government about shifting or using the enormous buying power of the government to shift a conversation, it's gonna more likely happen than when Penelope tries to find a way to get to her policy makers. So how are you thinking about that at Prudential? Are you thinking about that? Or can we ask you to think about that? I know you're kind of a rule breaker, so. Yeah, that may be of both my favorite. Oh come on. I think you're right though that I do think that that's another I think to James's sort of insight that fostering government change is a sort of an untapped third wheel to lever both of the sort of social impact and financial return in these opportunities. And I guess right now is obviously a difficult time for financial institutions to be having any conversations with the government. But I do think that the hope is that even looking at that video you see some recognition that we haven't been doing this right. I mean nobody can look at the last five years and say that we've got this machine solved. And the hope I think is that in times of flux and dynamism that a lot of things get thrown on the wall. And I think probably that would be the, maybe it's too optimistic to suggest that institutions will drive this, but at least if they can not resist things that foster innovation and just allow creativity. Because I think if we're honest with ourselves we probably would say we don't know the exact right models and so anything that's creating a Petri dish that's supportive of innovation I think is important. I think whatever the flaw is saying, the jobs act, at least it's trying something new. Maybe that, I think it's a good idea, but at least it's opening to my ideas up. Good opportunity as well. So proprietary investments have been significantly restricted for banks. What we do is proprietary investments. So we made sure that we could convey to the government to be great if we could continue to do what we're doing. And we're doing that in Europe and the US because it doesn't make sense. It would be an unintended consequence I think of the regulations if businesses like ours got shut down by those regulations. Right. Well it's an important thread and I have the feeling when we get some of our participants more involved in this conversation we all may get more questions about how to push institutions to partner better and push farther where they have the kind of power and potential that shifts the power discussion actually. James, when you think about the path that you're on, do you think that we're headed towards a new marketplace? Are you trying to change the entire economic system or are you one of those who thinks more about this as a convergence of markets? Where are you on that part of the conversation? Well I was inspired when I listened to Bill Gates once when he said in 1976 we said that our vision was to ensure that half the people in the world had owned a personal computer. And the response that when I said that to people was what's a personal computer? And I think you have to sort of aim, and actually I saw him speak in 2000 and he said now about quarter of the world's population have a personal computer. We're the biggest company in the world and we're halfway there. And I think if you don't aim high, you won't make the change that we need and we clearly need radical change. We realize that we're not gonna do that but I think there's a community of people coming together in a way of thinking where essentially you've got these different operators of capital in society but they don't see themselves as operators of capital and they haven't historically operated in silos and they've not seen the need to collaborate. And I think what we see is the real opportunity and value creation that can be realized when people do collaborate. And in the UK, we're certainly finding on a policy and on an intellectual level, there is a buy-in, a general buy-in across sectors to that. Everybody understands their constraints. We understand the constraints the banks have got. We understand the constraints that government has got. In terms of then implementing change, there's a whole set of institutional hurdles which we daily come up against. So it's not easy but there's definitely movement. Well, and I think if we find ways for institutions to be partners other than just capital partners and if the institutions see themselves as partners who make significant contributions and can be asked for those partnerships but putting the right type of capital in the right place at the right time is sort of part of this. And some of that capital is human capital. Some of that's intellectual capital. Some of that is purchasing capital. So it's influence capital. So I think those are all going to be really important components of creating scale to this arena. What's the most provocative idea you've tried to nurture internally on me? Most provocative. Probably, I think sort of one of the, we were big supporters of B-Lab. I think we're their largest financial supporter today. And I think- Do you want to quickly explain B-Lab just in case there's somebody who doesn't know what it is? Right. So B-Lab I guess it's hard to describe in 30 seconds but basically I think it's establishing a ratings engine analogous kind of to lead in the building context that sort of measures positive social impact of businesses as one part of what they do. That actually some of the more provocative parts I think are what they're doing around corporate law which is actually changing corporate law and allowing I think to taking away that leg, right? So we, I think in the earlier conversations we built this, we don't have to build it this way and sort of formally creating corporate forms that absolutely once and for all eliminate that potential notion that you only can maximize return. And so I think that's a pretty sort of radical notion. I think we've been very supportive. We've met with them and a number of different government officials around that and I think it matters. And so I think that's, getting the company to back them was probably the most internally provocative. It's a great example. Again, for those of you who think of large insurance companies as, and there are people in this conference who do think of large insurance companies as the other side of this conversation. It's important to note that Prudential was probably one of the earliest members of GIN, I think, the Global Impact Investing Network and has very aggressively advocated for alternative corporate forms. So I think that's a great example. And just one other sort of point is that we actually have some analogs in history. I mean, I love history. And so if you look at insurance companies, they originally formed as mutual benefit societies, right? I mean, Prudential was a mutual company until 10 years ago. So we do have in our history of capitalism lots of examples of non-pure profit maximizing entities that have been an essential part of the business landscape. And so I think if we look at it historically, it may well be that the Industrial Revolution through sort of 1989, I guess, is a very specific segment of what capitalist behavior patterns are. And so I think there are at least some analogs. And that certainly helps, I think, with insurance entities as being able to look at these conversations because they've had different legal forms. That's a really good point. Yes, I mean, you've created this body of research and because I've gotten to know you a little bit over the last several months, I know that you've got a really creative brain and you're a little bit fearless yourself. What do you most need to have happen with this research? I mean, if you're looking out at not just inside your own institution, but you're thinking about the very diverse group of people, 1700 people are here, social entrepreneurs and academicians and incredibly talented serial entrepreneurs and wealthy individuals, what benefits you most in terms of getting this research disseminated in a way that it fuels action as opposed to just being another big book that... Yeah, what helps you? I think one of, so my background is in mathematics and I always felt that this sector, well, we don't have a lot of data and so it's hard to analyze the data, but if we could bring a mathematical rigor to the way we think about things and frameworks, then we could be speaking at least a language that makes sense between different parties and then we could best communicate where opportunities overlap and where maybe there aren't overlaps. And so for me, this research that we produced this week is informed by conversations with over 20 different organizations about how they think about things. So I like to think I'm not just inventing something here, but hopefully this is a language and a tool in the same way that investors could use the traditional risk return assessments and portfolio optimization to make decisions and then translate their decisions to their board or to their committee or represent their portfolio because there are two things going on right now. There's interest from institutions and individuals that are new to the sector who need a way of clarifying this complexity. I think since the phrase impact investing was coined, there's become a lot more exposure to it, but there's a lot more confusion about what it means. And so part of this was to help entrepreneurs, which is my new favorite word like us, I guess, communicate to the parties from which they need buy-in what they're trying to accomplish. And this is hopefully gonna be a language for that. So that's for new people coming in, but there is also a stage of maturation happening with existing impact investors where they're reaching a point of, okay, I used to have a portfolio of five investments. I could kind of keep all this in my head. I know what the risk return impact profiles are and how this balances out across the portfolio in my head. But first of all, communicating that is hard. And secondly, now I have a portfolio of 50 investments. I can't keep that in my head anymore. And if I have like a table of lots of sentences describing this stuff, that's not really useful. And it's not to say this framework is all you need, but it's a starting point and it should feed into the assessment and the analysis in a way that simplifies things enough to deliver that communication to whoever needs it. Right, so you're a big fan of, I mean, I know you're a big fan of the fact that we have to have a demonstrated track record, the rigor around data, the opportunities to create meaningful data are numerous right now. And I think the work you've done and all of the conversations with the 20 who participated in the survey are a very rich source of new data. It's really important work. James, what are you gonna do next that's provocative? We're in the provocative part of this conversation. Do you feel like provoking institutions or provoking government or just continuing to work on your portfolio? No, I mean, I think provoking in a very constructive way. I think, you know, we've really been on a journey for the last few years where we've really understood what different institutions and parts of the economy are trying to achieve and what their constraints are and what they can do. And I think that the more that we engage with them, the more we realize in banks, in government, you know, these are good people who want, you know, they're in their business because they believe that they have an opportunity to make the world better, to provide capital or to achieve social outcomes. But there are a lot of constraints. So I suppose where we see it going and what we're doing more and more of is engaging with them and just working together on understanding what those constraints are and thinking through how they can be overcome. So I do see a very significant volume of work because it's about culture change. And that takes time, but I'm also very hopeful because younger people, I think see the world differently. I think there's a kind of, there's a real paradigm shift underway. And I think the levers of power are gonna transfer to some of these younger people who just don't accept a kind of binary world view that maybe their parents have. And I know that people like you who run, you know, basically you're operating from a family office perspective as you think about the next generation, you have a very, you have your own very tangible opportunity, but it's incumbent on all of us. And those of you who know me at all know that I speak all the time about multi-generational strategies, not just approaches, but strategies being critically important right now. We have this huge leverage and we need to take advantage of it. We were told that our time is going to be slightly less than we thought it was. So I'm gonna shift now to questions because I wanna take advantage of those of you in the room to throw your questions at us and at this group of individuals here. I can see some familiar faces through the lights. And so I suspect there are some questions. And Bjorn, our colleague here is gonna help us out. So questions, thoughts, don't have to be just questions, but you know, provocative additional thoughts, things you think we ought to be thinking about in this context. Talk to us. We can hardly see you, but talk to us. Hello? There you go. Hi, Mike Pierce, Cambridge Associates. I had a question about Prudential and JP Morgan. And I speak to clients all the time who are broadly interested in impact investing and actually getting these foundations and endowments to kind of take the next step is a challenge and it comes I think a lot from the governance of these institutions and investment committees and they mentioned fiduciary duty. And I'm just thinking about these internal pools of capital that maybe have internal clients and how are they measured? How are you benchmark? What is the, what do you have to say as managing Prudential's capital that your pool of assets is achieved? And I'm thinking about it because maybe it is another example of an analog that could be used with my clients to say this is how an insurance company figured this out and does it or this is how JP Morgan figured this out and they do it. And also for JP Morgan, I'm also curious how, what kinds of clients have actually taken steps to implement some of this? And are they clients that have a sole decision maker or are they clients that are really governed by an investment committee or something like that? So we've got a couple of different questions there. Do you wanna try to take on Mike's first question? Sure, I was just gonna defer to you. So, yeah. Or Jasmine, if you guys can take them all? Yeah, I'll do that. Sure. So internal benchmarks and then, so for us the internal benchmark for our principal portfolio is really, I mean, we wanna assess the balance of the portfolio as a whole. So if you think about our target profile, we don't assess each individual opportunity to make sure it fits into the target. We wanna make sure the aggregate is within the target and that's sufficient. So that is nice because it gives us a little flexibility to be catalytic in a new opportunity where maybe the return might be lower, but we, for example, last year we invested in African Agricultural Capital Fund alongside the Gates Foundation, the Gatsby Charitable Trust and the Rockefeller Foundation together with USAID providing a technical assistance facility and a guarantee, partial guarantee. So that was a catalytic investment opportunity where we had the chance to be a part of something to evidence that these different actors could come together. That return profile was lower than what we would normally pursue, but we were able to get comfortable with the whole thing because of that catalytic component to it. And so that's okay because we have other investments that balance out that profile from a return standpoint and that's acceptable to our investment committee. And then on the point of decision-makers, it's rarely, rarely, I think never, a single individual. And so that's why this communication point is really important. And the work that I'll be doing over the next few months is helping some of the institutions that are now starting to think about this to put that into a language that's more traditional for their committees or their boards. It was feedback that we got during the process from one of the pension funds we spoke to. They said, if you're really gonna try and get these kinds of bodies involved in this market, you need to speak our language. And while three dimensions is not quite, they said, put it into, we're used to. I couldn't bring myself to do that. But at least it, I think it's hopefully a bridge between the language that's used in their traditional operations and the language that can be used in the impact sector. So I guess to your question, I think a couple things that we've done. One, I think we have history, which helps. I think we have enough data sort of on historic returns to say, look, I don't know what the future holds, but you're not gonna lose 25%. I'm not gonna make you 25%. I'm gonna make some money. And I think, at some level, I think, at least what's been fairly successful on our end is to say, look, tell me what you're earning on everything else, right? I mean, you tell me with the stock market, I mean, you're pursuing a certain return, but you didn't get it. Right. You know, and especially right now where, you know, our portfolio is probably one of the best performing portfolios in the company, right? And so it makes those conversations easier, but I also think not being defensive about it. I mean, that's one of the big things that we try to cultivate on our team is, you know, we are doing this and you're not asking your municipal finance bond guys to compete and compare with their equity guys. They do something, you know, people just do different things. And there's not enough data in all of the world to say what ones are correlated, uncorrelated until they happen. But that, you know, one, not being defensive. And I think then getting people comfortable that there's a rigorous process making investments. So I can't tell you what the returns or what reasonable expectations are. You know, I don't have a crystal ball, but I can tell you they're gonna be done with discipline. They're gonna be done with an attention to deep social impact. And they're gonna be done with an attention to maximizing profits within those constraints. And I think that's been relatively successful because I think part of this is that this shouldn't be hard, right? And if somebody's making it hard, that's, I think people think there's something difficult there. I think there's a question over here and I'm gonna keep going because I know we've got, yes. Yes, I'm Luis Gallo from the Social Investment Bank in Columbia. And as a constructive criticism to SOCAP, I think we're too focused on funds and money that sits in formal instruments. And if you look at emerging countries like, you know, Brazil, Colombia, Peru and others in Latin America especially, we sense that there's a ton of impact investing happening at the corporations, at the individual wealth management, not through the private banks, and even at the governments. And I wonder if there's any effort to try to put a number on those amounts which would make this field and this space much bigger. Just speaking from the SOCAP perspective, thank you for that comment. And I know that in building up to SOCAP this year, one of the things we've been working hard to do is bring more of our corporate colleagues from around the world to the table. I was fortunate to be in Europe a couple of weeks ago speaking at a conference and I spoke to many more corporate colleagues there just an onslaught of corporate interest to me. And I think we need to bring much more of that here. There are many corporations represented here but we need them right here. So I agree with you about that. And thank you for the comment. As far as response though, maybe James you can take that one. Well, I agree. I think maybe five years ago, particularly before the crash and it's a media aftermath when everybody was terribly busy just trying to stabilize the shit. The impact investing community was sort of alone in thinking about this. I think since then, we are seeing an explosion of interest in how capitalism can serve society rather than the other way around. And so I see for example corporate social responsibility which I saw as window dressing five years ago. I see a genuine engagement at very high levels in big international corporations to see how they can play a more constructive social role. And so I think these boundaries are gonna start to merge increasingly. And I see impact investing now as just one part of a broader range. And I think going back to the point about fiduciary duty for example, I think there's a raging debate in the UK now about what fiduciary duty actually means and what it came to mean. Maybe after everyone bought into the Milton Friedman social responsibility of businesses to maximize profits. And actually people are re-appraising that. They're rethinking fiduciary duty. So this is happening across the spectrum. And I think it would be to the great benefit of the impact investing community to really try and broaden the conversation and bring all these other parties in in a more profound way. So yours is the same. Thank you very much for raising that. I personally really appreciate it. I'm gonna take one more question because we're gonna run out of time. Is that okay? Yeah. Okay. So to you, you. Hi. Hi, my name's Mark Thornton. I think that I'm an ex-Jeffrey Morgan person. The context I think is really, really important. In terms of the social contract that we have, Jeffrey Morgan's philanthropy as a percentage of anything is less than 1%. The amount of volunteer hours is just so remedial. So I think in this kind of zero trust environment that the public has with institutions, I really want to just ask, I'm kind of aching for some sort of inspiration. Like you guys seems like gems in a desert. And I think I'd love to leave from this panel being like really genuinely inspired about really what's really happening. So I'm asking for your best inspirational story. Good for you. Yeah. That's a high, high bar. I guess we reckon our portfolio is $40 million. Speaking of drops in the bucket. But what we're trying to accomplish with that is the portfolio that our clients own. And getting access to that portfolio, to me, I guess, actually two weeks ago, I had an email that I really celebrated because, you know, I joined the team in 2010. At that point, the team had been in existence since 2007 and this kind of proof of concept stage. And then we grew the team in 2010. At that point, it was very much a push. We were pushing out to the private bank. You should check us out. Look at this sector. Your clients would be interested and there were a lot of closed doors. Within two years, that's turned around quite dramatically. And we just met with our private bank in San Francisco this morning. We had a full room. Everyone said everyone is asking us about this. It's great to meet you guys. We're gonna use you and we're gonna put you in front of our clients. But it's not just the individual side. It's also the fiduciaries that are starting. And that was the email I celebrated two weeks ago. One of the biggest insurance companies in the world, CIO, called and said, I've read your research. Can you come and talk to us about this stuff? And I think that to me is very inspiring because I know ours is a drop in the bucket but theirs, theirs is inspiring. So I'm a people person and I don't know if you can see this but I'm watching Yasmeen's face and I'm watching the sparkle in her eye when she's trying to converse with you and give you inspiration which I really appreciate you doing. And I appreciate you asking the question very much because I know you come from one world and need that inspiration from what little bit I know about you. And more and more if we can have the conversations where the person who may have at one time been a director at JPMorgan and has gone to something that they care deeply about can come to you and say give me inspiration. You're at JPMorgan, tell me something inspiring. I actually think that moves this conversation farther faster. We've been told we're out of time. I'm sure you'll all have many questions for our panelists. I so appreciate the three of you being with me on stage and remember that we'll be doing deeper design sessions around this concept of breaking the rules about transforming economic systems throughout the day. And thanks everybody and have a great lunch. Thank you. Thank you.