 Hi everybody, good morning. You guys know that impact investing has been around for many decades, and it's grounded in a bunch of trends around community finance, in housing and small business in the US, micro finance and international development, and foundation programs and mission-related investing. We have been working to, oops, get this, do we have our slides? Green button. There we go. So some of you may have seen, last, earlier this month, there was a very interesting debate on the Stanford Social Innovation Review. Paul Brest and Kelly Bourne wrote a piece about, are we really having impact in impact investing? And there was a ground swell over response. There were 18 field leaders who responded and gave their honest commentary to what was going on. And we looked at this and we said, you know, this makes it look as if there's no cohesion in this marketplace. There's a lot of different opinions, and they're not consistent, and it's a little disturbing. The reason it's disturbing to us is because we've found out that this is simply not true, that in this marketplace we have been looking for the past two years in depth at 13 impact investing funds around the globe that work in 80 countries that manage over $3 billion, and we have hand-selected them because they have what we're calling exceptional returns, which means they have met or exceeded their investor's financial expectations, and they have met or exceeded their social impact expectations as well. And what's exciting is that when you look at, across these funds, what we're here to tell you is there's a lot more cohesion, and there are practices that go across all the funds, and it seems as if there are some signals for success. That's what our project has been about. It's called the Impact Investor Project. We are going to be releasing a report later this fall on the project, but what we want to do this morning is give you a little bit of a preview of some of the themes that have come out of this project. We're going to actually be talking later this afternoon from 2.45 to 5.00 in the fleet room, some of you have seen these little cards on your chairs. Some of the fund managers that we've been talking with are going to be there this afternoon, and we hope you'll join us to meet them and hear their stories directly, but in the next 10 minutes we're going to talk about what are some of the practices of these real funds and debunk some of the myths that we think have been holding the field back. We're calling this Impact Investing 2.0. We feel like 1.0 has been this mishmash of opinion, and it turns out that there are common practices that we think will define Impact Investing going forward. So I'm going to let Ben take over with our first... Thanks, Cathy. So this is a fund, an investor, sailing towards the financial and social objectives it cares about, and it's both an inspiring image, but it's also a little worrying, inspiring because it's unconstrained. This is a platform for innovation. The boat can set its own course, but worrying because there's no support for when the boat hits more challenging times, but this is the mythology, that this is the ideal environment in which to innovate, and that unconstrained innovation is what is most desirable. What we discovered when we looked at the funds is that this is a mythology. The truth is that the boat is not alone, and this image hints at all the institutional supports that really underpin Impact Investing. But the one we have in mind is the role of government. Three of the 13 funds we researched were created in partnership with government. Eight of the funds we researched had investments directly from public sector institutions. Six of the funds are structured and have capital heavily influenced by government regulation, and seven of the funds work explicitly to influence the policy environment in which their investors operate. So in short, Impact Investing is in fact a form of public-private partnership. The public sector is ubiquitous. It's everywhere in Impact Investing. Newer generations of funds, more mature markets, or particularly underdeveloped markets, may exhibit fewer characteristics of government involvement, but the reality is that government, as you'll hear later this morning, is becoming more interested in Impact Investing, not less interested. So Impact Investing is public-private partnership. Cathy? So the next thing we want to talk about is the role of catalytic capital. So often when you look at how Impact Investing deals and funds come together, it looks a little bit like this jumble over here. And in fact, Audrey Choi of Morgan Stanley has called it the crazy straw picture of how different kinds of capital gets together. And a lot of people look at this and they get really nervous. There are some people in the philanthropic community that say, you know, unless it's very clear that we are needed, we shouldn't be participating in this market. There are people in the mainstream market saying, unless this is a clean, mainstream, straightforward investment, we shouldn't be in here at all. And what we have found in these, again, 13 successful funds is that this notion of catalytic capital is essential and has been essential to them succeeding. So the picture is more like this, where that interweaving of different kinds of capital with different kinds of goals has led to the important impacts that these funds have been achieving at scale. And there are a bunch of different ways that that catalytic capital comes together, and we're going to be teasing those out in our reports. The important thing is that it has different functions. Every single fund that we have profiled has catalytic capital in, and many of them have catalytic capital going out, where the capital is an instrument for generating returns, and it works to either sustain, de-risk, signal, seed, or align with other strategic objectives. We're going to turn it over to Jed for the next one. So I love coming to SoCAP, and the reason I love coming to SoCAP is that I get to see all of you. And all of you represent different parts of a really diverse community of actors that's coming together around this common challenge and opportunity of how do we drive capital for multiple returns, for financial performance, for social and environmental impacts. And one of the things that I like to see is finance people coming into the conversation for the first time. I like to see kind of reform social workers coming into the conversation. I like to see the mix, because I think that's really the strength of this community. And I think that what we've seen, though, in the past years has been a devolution of the conversation and a myth that seems to be coming up, and I think in some ways it's tied to this, are you a finance first or an impact first conversation? But it's a conversation that says the parts are more significant than the whole, and that what we're really trying to do is convince somehow the finance people to do more good, and the good people to be more financially responsible. And we are at risk, I think, of continuing a division of silos instead of cross cuts. And one of the things that we have found in our research with these funds has been that the most successful funds have actually been led by fund managers and certainly by teams that actually are multi-wingual. They're able to comfortably play across those different silos of government orientation, private market orientation, and development orientation, in a way that really allows them to see a new hole, to see new opportunities, to create impact and manage their capital for impact. And so the successful firms are really those that think in this integrated way instead of the parts. And that's one of the pieces that we're going to be exploring in our session this afternoon is what we're calling the multi-lingual leadership, or what I used to call mutant managers. Because these are folks who basically don't fit in either side traditionally, but fit very well in that cross-cut space of advancing blended value through capital allocation. Thanks, Jed. And finally, this kind of abstract image of a couple of lines. This is the niggling, constraining theoretical underpinnings that I think a lot of us have become more conscious of, which is what Jed described as the dichotomy between a fund being a financial first fund and being an impact first fund, which really defined the era of impact investing 1.0 and was very useful in enabling an initial conversation. But we believe it's time to retire that dichotomy. Financial firsts, you know, were funds that were set up to achieve sort of uncompromised sort of market rate return impact first funds having an impact intention which was disqualifying in terms of an investment and an interest in the investment. What we've seen with all 13 funds as the case with catalytic capital, where all 13 funds had catalytic capital at their core, all 13 funds approach impact investing in the same way, regardless of their financial or social proclivities. What that actually looks like is this. We're at the beginning of a fund's creation and the origins of a fund and investment thesis and investment theory of change is developed which embeds financial and social impact. This is essentially a mission first approach where we're using impact investing as a tool to accomplish a particular set of financial or social objectives. Once that is established and that is in a fund's DNA, the fund then moves forward with absolute financial discipline. They must move forward with absolute financial discipline. That's what the most successful funds do. And then during diligence, deployment, they have that financial discipline, the top of the line here. And then towards the end of the life of the fund or the end of a life of a deal, they return again to that initial investment thesis which was based on their underlying mission and objectives for doing impact investing. So in effect, impact investing is more complex. There are institutional objectives. There's institutional structures that govern how folks deploy capital. There are values. There are financial objectives. There are markets that we care about. And all those things come together in a much more complex and nuanced fashion. The shape of the arc with financial and impact considerations overlapping is the factual, practical underpinnings of the way funds do what they do. But essentially, that's representative of a much more complex way of approaching this. And we think we now have the tools at our disposal. We think we now have the data and evidence we need to move to a new era of 2.0 in impact investing where for the first time we can really understand that nuance. We can tackle that complexity. We can segment the market in a way where we have the knowledge to truly align markets with mission. So please join us on the journey towards impact investing 2.0 and we look forward to seeing you this afternoon. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thank you.