 Hello, everyone. Welcome to this installment of SoCAP Next. These are conversations that are designed to take us all to our next levels of action. Thank you so much for tuning in from wherever you are around the world. I know we have an exciting conversation set up for you and really looking forward to digging into this conversation led by Justin. So Justin, I'm going to turn it over to you. And I also just want to say an extra thank you to Bailey Gifford for helping to sponsor this entire set of SoCAP Next conversations. And then we will be hearing more from them and our panelists right now. So Justin, over to you. Thank you, Carrie. And thank you for the whole team at SoCAP. You guys have been such a wonderful leader in the industry for these types of discussions and the various events that you put on since impact investing early days. So wonderful to be a part of this. And I think, and welcome everyone that's tuning in for this great discussion. I am dialing in from Minnesota, the headwaters of the Mississippi, and more importantly, the ancestral lands of the Dakota Native American tribe. And while I'm here, I work for a company called Pacific Community Ventures based in the Bay Area in California that is a nonprofit community development financial institution or CDFI. It's been around for about 20 some years. And we've focused on investing in minority and women owned businesses in throughout California, providing technical support through a business advising platform that is that both in the state of California for our own investing, but you can gain access to that throughout the entire US. And then the research and consulting practice that I had head up focused on impact measurement and management, supporting institutional clients, building out impact investing strategy and fund managers that are developing new product in the industry. So that's a little bit about PCV. I'm today we have with us an incredible panel. What I think is interesting is the diversity and perspective that my fellow panelists will be able to offer we have an independent institutional investment consultant with various investments, one of the largest in the industry that's been around over 30 years. We have one of the largest public pension funds in the US. And we have one of the largest and oldest fund managers in the world with Bailey Gifford. So why don't I pass it to Eileen to provide some additional perspective on your background and the organization you work with. Sure, thank you Justin, and hello everyone, and I'm dialing in from beautiful Maui, Hawaii, where I'm on vacation with my family but my background is that I have been an institutional investment consultant for over 30 years. And I've been embarrassed, just shy of just about three and a half years. My focus is on large public funds, typically, and I provide a variety of services such as asset allocation, policy development, investment research, manager evaluation and monitoring. And an area that I've been focusing on since I've joined various has been ESG and impact investing, helping our firm to sort of sharpen if you will, our knowledge and skills of the impact and ESG environment. So I'm happy to be participating on this panel and looking forward to the discussion. Thanks Eileen. Nick. Good morning everyone and thank you Justin for the opening remarks and thank you so cap and Bailey Gifford for letting us participate in this panel we're excited to be here and delighted to join you on fascinating discussion and area focus. Well, I work for CalSTRS. For those of you that don't know us, we manage the pension assets for the California State educators, our assets under management are about 290 billion give or take today. And my role at CalSTRS is among the Sustainable Investment and Stewardship Strategies Unit. We're not an asset class but we're a distinct unit within the investment department where we have our own pool of capital that we invest. And if I help co-manage about $10 billion of listed equity strategies predominantly focused on the intersection of long term sustainability value drivers and trying to identify investment opportunities that are added to the total fund. I'd like to join in CalSTRS as a West Path Investment Management where I lead strategy and us execution for their ESG innovation efforts. Before that was at RB Coons and Associates, an institutional investment consultant and prior to that a growth equity fundamental analysis to turn the capital very happy to be here today with you all participate in the broader discussion. Thanks Nick. And Ed you on around us out. Thank you Justin. Thank you so cap and my other fellow panelists. So as Justin said I work at Bailey Gifford, which is a UK based investment manager with roughly just over 400 billion assets under management. And we mainly invest in global listed equities with a long term time horizon. I'm a senior impact analyst and I'm sure we'll come on to what that is in a minute at on Bailey Giffords positive change strategy, which is now four years old. And it's a concentrated portfolio of global listed equities with the dual objectives. We're looking for obviously attractive financial returns and our second objective is that the company's products and services contribute to more sustainable and inclusive world. I've been at Bailey Gifford for just over three years. And before working at Bailey Gifford I, I was a consultant on risk and social impact, mostly in private equity and insurance. And while I have some expert experience of impact investing in private equity, most of my impact investing experience comes in in the public markets. Thanks Ed. So we have the institutional investment consultant or gatekeeper to a wide variety of institutional investors with various and Eileen, and we have an asset owner with Nick and CalSTRS overseeing one of the largest financial interventions and and then Ed with with Bailey Gifford on on managing a fund that's dedicated to both competitive financial return and and impact. So I really am excited about rounding out this discussion from all of your perspectives. I would like to clarify to the, the panel's title is is talking about balancing scale returns and measurability and impact investing. I think balancing implies there's necessarily a trade off between these at these three areas and the scale and market returns are are actually positively correlated and measuring impact is essential to the industry's continued growth. So I think it's, we actually, we aired and entitling it such we should have called it optimizing scale returns and measure of measurable impact. I think that's the first point of clarification. And then to set the framework just to make sure it's clear for all of our listeners. Our discussion today will definitely focus on market rate return competitive financial return side of the impact investing industry versus any type of concessionary or catalytic capital. I wanted to highlight that and wanted to then open it up with kind of a more of a general question for our panelists. What role of impact investing in different, do you believe in investing in different asset classes and how can this be achieved at different scales. So Ed, do you want to kind of lead us out on on this one. Sure. So, as I said, public equities is our is our domain at the moment and fundamentally impact investing there is about is about scale. I think public equity impact investing really bring scale that's required to address some of the world's greatest challenges and I think the figure for funding the SDGs annually is something like five to seven trillion markets can can bring billions to that total. I think that, you know, I suppose how does the capital work for impact in public markets, and as well as the provision of primary capital, which we often do through IPOs or raises I think enabling a lower cost of capital for companies achieving impact is really important. Secondly, I think as a company goes private in an effort to scale and to grow and to reach new heights of growth, I guess. This is not the time for a company to lose that voice of a shareholder which is supportive and aligned with its, its mission of achieving impact. So we believe that impact investors in public markets markets can provide that crucial voice and stewardship that companies need. And then, thirdly, I would say that linked my first point to to try to provide, we want to try to find access to impact investing to a greater number of investors. And we feel that through allowing people to invest their savings and pensions in companies which whose products and services are aligned with their own values is a virtuous cycle. And we think it's really important. I think it doesn't say there's not challenges in public equities as everybody knows I think scale brings complexity and uncertainty to and that's why the impact management and measurement piece is really important. I'm sure we'll talk about that soon. That's helpful perspective and yeah I think we'll definitely be getting into those types of details. Nick or Eileen do you have any additional perspective to add there before we kind of move on. So, I guess I kind of think about your, the first question in terms of, you know, how a client or plan sponsor that is looking to build or establish an impact program. They kind of tend to look over their entire investment program so Ed just described one generally very large component of any institutional portfolio and for that matter probably a retail portfolio as well and that is public equities. But there are a number of other asset classes in which investors allocate capital. And I think once you move away from public equities then they're do be there does become issues of scale in terms and also opportunities so for example fixed income, which is another important portfolio component. You know, is limited right and you're limited to the corporate bond segment and within that segment, probably limited further in terms of opportunities and obviously there are green bonds that are available for investment but then the scale ability of those bonds becomes a major issue or of any bond holding. There's just limited scale. So I think it's, that's a particular challenge for investors that are interested in having impact exposures throughout their investment program. And a lot of opportunities reside is in the private market side, particularly in private equity and to some degree in private real estate to the extent that that's, you know, you're you're developing affordable housing for example I think is a big play in real estate for impact investing. And I think there is where there is both potential scale and and certainly I think even bigger opportunities because investors have an opportunity to actually work with managers and create custom portfolios that are very targeted in terms of the areas in which they may want to focus their impact investing because investors typically tend to have a theme that they that they want to have be pervasive throughout their portfolio whether it is developing affordable housing or if it's a focus on supporting clean energy, etc. So I, I think that the low hanging fruit is probably public equities but in terms of the other asset classes there, there really needs to be a targeted approach developed for each of those various portfolio segments. Definitely seeing more of a purity of impact where there's, if there is an identified theme that you're a client of yours is interested in the particular manager goes beyond that, or to go fund strategy goes beyond that type of impact. They're, they're kind of sitting on the sidelines then for now waiting for a little bit more focus. You know, some organizations, particularly on the endowment foundation side tend to be very mission driven they want to align their investing with their respective missions and so they may have a narrower approach whereas I think in, you know, an investor and Nick can probably just speak to this or CalSTRS of a larger maybe a public fund would have, you know, multiple themes they simply want to have a number of strategies which at the end of the day. They can, you know, measure as having achieved some sort of impact objective. Thanks, Eileen. Well, Nick. Yeah, if you don't mind, Justin, I might jump in on that. I think Eileen's spot on, I think, you know, from from our perspective to and apologize I didn't frame this in the intro remarks. Currently our Sustainable Investments Team manages a listed equity portfolio and that's what I help co-manage. We're this month going to the board with a request to expand our delegated authority to move into other asset classes and not dissimilar to Ed, our focus there is we have a dual objective and so our portfolio's primary objective is to secure the financial retirement and security for our pension participants and sustain the trust of the California educators and so in that context it's returns focus and once we add it to the total fund. But the second objective is we want to be able to deploy capital and meaningful opportunities have demonstrable positive contributions to a more sustainable global economy largely because we think it helps create a more resilient financial market over the long term which helps us secure the retirement readiness of our pension participants and so to that point on scale. What I think is interesting on art what we bring to the table in this discussion is what we're trying to do is learn by doing in our own portfolio. And so in our in the small pool of assets that we get to co-manage for CalSTRS, we try and showcase that you can have or you can seek out investments that have demonstrable contributions more sustainable economy, while being added to the total fund by doing. And sometimes these investments across different asset classes are nascent, but as they grow and scale, you know phase two then is being able to work with our other colleagues in different asset classes to try and bring along with us. The opportunities set as these kind of emerging investment opportunities might bloom into something that might come more institutionally investable. And so I think that scale piece is interesting because we certainly see that as a phasing approach of trying to tackle kind of smaller investment opportunities today with our team, showcasing the proof of concept with the hopes that it will one day be able to grow into a larger pool of investment opportunities for other colleagues. Thanks Nick, you imagine there with such a large portfolio and so many different asset classes that you have exposure to currently. And I'm very involved in something like that. Can you elaborate a little bit more on the, the interaction between the governance and how that direction will determine what you're, how you're investing and what you're able to, to do, especially on your team. That bring in the fact that I know we've talked in the preparation a little bit about, you know, the mixed signals that we've seen from the government on some guidance on on how to take into consideration ESG or ESG risk can be considered in decision making. Yeah, I think from just maybe at a very high level, you know, from a governance model perspective our portfolio effectively has kind of two components and for folks interested you can see some of this information in our public documents but you know one element of that is kind of what we're effectively calling our scaling portfolio where we will collaborate with our investment colleagues to scale investment opportunities that are added to the total funds so leveraging our real estate investment colleagues expertise or private equity colleagues expertise, etc. The other pool of capital though will be kind of what we gained this new opportunities portfolio where our team is kind of demonstrating the proof of concept or something that maybe we believe we have a differentiated view on that we think could be added to the total fund but for whatever reason whether it's a benchmark consideration or size consideration or something some of our other colleagues might not be able to take action on that and so two different governance models for how that portfolio is managing to your point on the DOL, you know I think philosophically we're very aligned with how Bailey thinks about kind of investing in the space in the sense that it's not concessionary returns or looking for, you know, commensurate risk adjusted returns that are market rate. And when we when we when you played that nexus of the aspiration of trying to have positive contributions towards a more sustainable economy and fulfilling your fiduciary duty and finding attractive risk adjusted returns that the overlap of those two concentric circles. We really don't think there's a whole lot of issue with regards to kind of DOL rulings or different comments that are issued by by various folks on largely because we're squarely focused on being added to the total fund is kind of the first objective and the second objective is being able to demonstrate positive contributions and so it's not at this or that but at this and that so that kind of keeps you clear from kind of the discussion on what you can or can't do because at the end of the day we're principally focused on securing the retirement readiness for pension participants. Interesting. It's always helpful to hear how you're processing information and kind of guidance from the broader market and specifically make the government regulation. Ed or Eileen, any additional perspective I guess on maybe some barriers that were that we're seeing I know Eileen you already commented on some of the scale aspects of it. But maybe Ed from your vantage point being in the most liquid asset class focused on a concentrated portfolio. Any additional comments on what you're seeing is the biggest barriers. I'll just pick up on one of Nick's points there about the not compromising on either of those objectives I think that's something we found very useful having the two objective and I think we all are mantras kind of purpose it purpose compliments profit. And it's something we, you know, we have seen through our investments you know you very often see if your impact metrics are rising. The share prices usually going up to and earnings are doing well as well. And to pick up on one other point that Nick made is that yeah we I think again we're quite aligned and we do believe that over the long term, you know the health of society is is really important for the health of markets and economies going forward and therefore investments in the future and that's another reason why looking after to stakeholders is so crucially important from an ESG perspective. In terms of barriers I think the sort of the obvious one and the hurdle that we come up against a lot of the time is that data and disclosure that you get from publicly listed companies. I'm quite confident and positive about the level and an amount of data that we're going to get in the future, you know, in some markets it's being sort of regulated out this this data barrier. In others there's lots of helpful frameworks and things that are moving in, I think the right direction generally. So the level and amount I'm very positive about the content. I'm hopeful, but I am wary that this drive for sort of standardization of reporting and simplification of reporting has the potential to to stray away from emphasizing impact and focus too much on on some of the ESG risk metrics which is extremely important, but don't necessarily give an accurate impression of a company's true impact on on society or the environment. So that that's a gap for us and I think what that means for investors is, is that it can prevent, you know, the reporting that we can do to our to our clients and to the asset owners. And the reason why, you know, conversations with these companies from our perspective is really important because we can hopefully encourage these companies to report to report better and more impact focus metrics. Just to clarify that you a little bit Ed, you're, you're thinking that there is already or there, there's a risk of more of a kind of soul focus on the ESG risk side of the equation and less on the the positive impact potential that could be managed. I'm interested in what others think as well and whether we're just alone in thinking this but yeah that's exactly it I think that there is. It's a risk, but just because the amount of resources and effort that is going into into the reporting along these ESG metrics it's missing sometimes the sort of the upside and the positive case for some of these companies and, you know, a company who is who's product or services helping to reduce emissions that you know they're reduced emissions through their products is not going to be required to be reported but their operating emissions will be required. And we think there should be a bit more of a balance in the future around that because it's a more accurate picture of the market. That's not to say it's not extremely important to have these operating emissions and it's something we of course look at in our in our process as well. Am I alone in thinking this or I think it's a really good point you bring up because and and I realize that it may be different outside of the US but I think within the US because the whole impetus behind ESG investing is at least at the institutional level is, you know, the phrases to achieve a double good right to to achieve positive return experience but also to achieve some sort of positive, you know, impact if you will, and it that that's as far as it goes in terms of the objective in the intent, but then we have for whatever I don't know how we've gone in this direction but we, as you say have been very focused on the investment outcomes and in reporting all these metrics as they relate to, you know, that side of the equation and then, you know, basically ignore the you know the positive return, if you will, from the impact whether it's on the environment or what have you now the, particularly on the NF side but I think, you know, and Nick may do this at at CalSTRS but investors, I think are focused on both sides and you will I think that there's been a fair amount of thought and discussion in building impact and ESG policies to establishing a framework for evaluating the success of the efficacy of the strategy in achieving what its goal is from an impact as well as the standard, you know, metrics which are already fairly, you know, tied down by MSCI and sustainability and other vendors on the investment and portfolio side so I think you know it has to, it has those particular metrics I think have to somehow become part of that package when you're talking about results from your respective ESG or impact strategy. Yeah, I think to I agree with Irene and I think to the other thought that comes sometimes comes to mind is we're thinking about ESG metrics and kind of the trying to be overly precise with established frameworks no frameworks are good and metrics are good but this notion of dynamic equality and you know under the thesis that the future will look different than the past and purpose driven corporations or businesses or assets over long multi decade time horizons, inevitably things will change and so to the extent that you over emphasize backward looking metrics I think sometimes you run the risk of being, you know, precisely wrong instead of approximately right in terms of the trajectory of where business might be going and so I think I would echo that I think that's a tension to just in terms of and I think Justin you have some interesting insights on this and so I'd love to pull you into this but the tension of balancing being rigorous and having integrity with the program but also being practical and fluid enough as the space evolves as the world changes as the future continues to look different. You know how do you balance both of those from an investor perspective I think your vantage point advising investors you probably have some unique insights there but I would echo what Ed and I learned saying on that as well. I appreciate that Nick and it we do see, I would. It's a great point I mean the fact that it is a balance between the rigor and the efficiency of that information that you're collecting. It can't be only useful for the investor in reporting out the impact. You see, especially a PCV and our small business lending activity. These are businesses that are literally just trying to survive, especially in the global pandemic that we've been experiencing for the last year, just trying to survive for today financially. And so to, to collect information have them focus on gathering and reporting information that isn't actually helpful for their, their day to day management and the six the future success is is. Yeah, you're just you're just working against both the the potential impact that could be created and and the financial return of course, but so we're very pragmatic about the systems that we're building for that we're working with our clients on the impact measurement management. It needs to be information that's both helpful for the investor and the the investing the underlying company or the fund manager in in running executing a strategy like Ed Bailey Gifford does. And this is something that you want. I'm sure that the companies that you're you're investing in becoming partners with, you know why that information needs to serve everybody. And because it takes time, it takes to collect and to manage, and it's there's a cost to that. So it's not, we just we're very particular about that as much as it would be nice to report on a wide variety of impact. So I'm just going to come in on try to be very focused on what would be the most insightful impact measurement, what types of KPIs would be the most insightful. Because a lot of times there's going to be high correlation between various metrics. And, and so if you have one, there's a good chance you're going to have an increase in another and so that collecting both really doesn't, doesn't add to it. And actually can work against. So great perspectives from from all of you in that regard. I think that the audience is where very well versed on the standards and indoor resources that have been especially in the last few years the frameworks that are really evolving and becoming widely adopted across the industry and there are great resources like Iris plus the IFC is operating principles of impact management. And so I don't mean to get into the weeds on on kind of parsing these but any comments from anyone on on specific resources that you're either have always found useful or more recently are kind of looking into and leveraging and see great potential. I'll jump, I'll jump in. I think from, from an internal perspective things that we have been aided in the past and helped develop as the theory of change framework just a very simple inputs activities, outputs comes impact is just a really helpful way to think about how a company's intervention or product is is achieving impact just really simple but it's, it's proved to be extremely helpful because you can evidence it along the chain and that's something that we produce annually in our impact report and it's a helpful prompt for us internally to see where the impact's going but also we then have that audited so we're there's some verification around around our process. And the second thing which we've using more recently is the impact idea of an impact hypothesis. So quite often in our, in our process that will that will come before we do our impact analysis from an investment manager or somebody bringing the idea to us and that will be saying over the next five to 10 years we believe that this company will have this impact and then it's up to to us the impact analysts to test that theory, I suppose, and to really think about. And what that does is it encourages us to be forward looking and not rely on just the, the metrics that are reported by the company today. Because in things like health care, and I think modern as a good example of this in our portfolio is that, you know, a few years ago, it hadn't treated when when we invested it hadn't, hadn't provided anything for any patient really a very small population size. But it's about that hypothesis around the platform that it was building to enable them to do that in the future so yeah, there we have to be quite patient with companies at times, particularly in the healthcare space where you have pipelines of the future. But Madonna is a really good example for us of where that hypothesis really came into its own and hopefully will continue to play out over the next few years. I'll just say externally on, I think the impact management product projects five dimensions is a useful framework as well for reporting and I agree with you on the IFC's operating principles. And that's something which we use actually because we, we developed our own process prior to that but you know I think both of them have a lot of merit. And I presume they were something that may have informed your your thinking so you kind of use those those resources and then customize to your specific strategy. Our strategy predated those being published so we felt that but what we will always do is look at our process and and see whether it fits in with with some of the external standards and maybe we can talk about in a minute but our process we think it does cover all those five dimensions of impact from the IMB. It's one thing I mean just coming up with impact hypotheses for individual companies and theories of change. It takes a lot of time and effort and especially the dialogue you have in being a long term investor you're, you're not looking at hundreds and hundreds of companies to establishing that type of deep relationship with it's fairly concentrated. So it takes a lot of resources though, and you're dealing with large liquid companies I guess for Nick or Eileen and bringing in different asset classes or different strategies, any comments about any insights with regard to the, the resources that are required for this, that just the time and energy that you're putting into this and I'm also seeing some in the chain of questions that are coming in where from audience members talking about start ups and and private equity managers and how it's different for them, you know, especially with a lot more limited resources. So I think we should jump in and I mean, unless you'd like to go first. All right, you know I think I think from our perspective on on resourcing. We'd completely agree I mean, in fact for folks interested we're actively hiring and have more positions open. I don't have a public opportunity to share, but I think you're spot on I think what we found is, it is resource intensive and so trying to figure out how to staff up appropriately. How to leverage, you know, leverage frameworks I want to pick back up on what Ed said you know from from our vantage point we certainly don't think that we have a perfect, you know, process by any means and we're actively in discussions with folks. We've stated what IMP does, we're particularly excited about the statement of intent for various frameworks and platforms to start working together to align and consolidate metrics and frameworks where possible. And it's exciting for us but we're certainly learning by doing and we found that there's this natural square circle where you can't always just bolt on other frameworks or processes that we do like consensus being developed in the industry and so having to try to do something more tailored or bespoke to the investment process and the different types of assets that we're trying to manage and so similar to what Ed was saying it's definitely a balancing act of trying to align with what's emerging as gold standards but also trying to, be able and creative to develop things where we're appropriate I think made one shout out that I'd also give is, we found on SAS be while it's not an impact framework. They're underlying KPIs that they look at, we think are particularly interesting not least when you look at the mappings that have been done by Bob Eccles and others looking at underlying SDG targets and SAS be indicators and I think what's helpful for us there is, you know, we have a process, you know, for sourcing deals we'd like to try and link an investment hypothesis and a kind of a hypothesis around how long term sustainability shifts or trends are creating structural changes across industries or geographies that we think could be a creative over much longer lessons and so maybe nascent today could be larger in the future. And so we try and identify and leverage various folks work to try and see what some of those pieces could be and then what are appropriate KPIs to kind of test that thesis as we conduct due diligence to see if there is alignment with the investment strategy and kind of the notion of wanting to have real positive contributions to society, people and planet at large. But the resource piece I think you're spot on it's it's quite challenging, quite time intensive. Interesting. Are you finding that there are more opportunities that to to investigate, then you have time to investigate in the depth and and kind of scrutiny that you, you need. Or is there a limitation on the supply of good product out there to research. I used to hear, Ed or I mean from your vantage points from ours we certainly are busy. We think there's a lot of interesting ideas. And sometimes the challenge is how to how to prioritize those ideas and how to size them appropriately, especially if you're looking across the capital structure across industries geographies or asset classes. How do you think about concentration risk, kind of financial analysis and all the typical work you do but then also the dimension of real world implications for what your backing owning or wanting to support with your capital and that makes us quite busy but I'd be curious if we're alone in that or others echo that as well. I would say it is a huge challenge it's almost like a, you know, drinking from a fire hose. In terms of there's so many strategies again as an institutional consultant we're covering all asset classes and in which plan sponsors wish to allocate capital and and there's such a breath of good product with varying objectives, you know, sustainability being some governance being others, you know I think about activists investing that's focused on governance. And, and then, you know we have an issue with some of our clients some of our most active clients in the space that want to have, you know, the exposures that either targeted or even more broad. They may not have the capital to go into particularly in the private market side they may not have capital to disperse across a diverse set of strategies and so the risk is, you know, being dependent on one or two strategies and then there's manager specific risk on top of all the other types of risks that we try to evaluate in identifying appropriate strategies for our clients so, you know, our challenges we have clients that range from, you know, a few hundred million in size to multiple billions and trying to come up with attractive alternatives in this space that is suitable across that range of clients so it's a, it's a huge challenge. Again that low hanging fruit being I think the public equity side, because, you know, everyone has to have all institutional portfolios have to have some public equity exposure and, you know, that seems to be the place again because of the scale, where we have more more opportunities that can be spread across that very broad client base than we do once we start migrating particularly into private markets and I think of private equities. You know, the question earlier about resources, I think that they're really challenged in terms of having resources which enable them to be able to, you know, effectively measure and monitor how their particular investments are meeting the objectives or their stated goals with respect to whatever their theme is that the capital is being allocated towards so there's a lot of, I think, opportunity for vendors that are focused on developing these frameworks and metrics on that private market side in particular. For more standardization or common common. Yes, yes for more standardization exactly. Are you finding I mean with the variety of clients you're dealing with is, is, are you finding that their different interests different impact interests are really limiting their ability your ability to find appropriate investment. In some cases, I think that's probably true. But I think the, you know, for us, we have to ensure that we're providing, you know, the best advice and the best solutions for our clients and you know so we can't we can't treat one differently than the other and and and so why I think the difficulty is for us is there's so there's funneling these opportunities that we see in the impact and in ESG space. And to slot those into these various categories like okay that that would be a great strategy for our in F clients that are focused on climate for example, or you know this would be an applicable strategy for our very large clients because it's potentially broader in nature and that's more appealing to them and is more scalable and so you know we have to try to find the best in class if you will that would be appropriate for you know, say a small very focused client and best in class that would be appropriate for larger clients that want maybe broader multiple themes. That makes sense. It does. It's helpful and I know Nick we're going to be losing you actually you have a client meeting you have to jump to and it just a few minutes. I just come back to you before I circle back with Eileen and and Ed, and we have some questions coming in general questions, talking about alignment of interest and both impact and financial return and how you ensure that, or what are ways in which to you, you better understand the commitment to the impact side of the equation. Any parting words from you or additional insights you care to share. I appreciate you flagging that 1000 apologies everyone for having to drop early but I think from our perspective we're just delighted to join Bailey so cap and the fellow panelists to frankly learn from you all and participate in the growing conversation in the space we think it's exciting. I think I did see one question from the audience about advice to startups, and I think picking up on what you're suggesting about alignment. You know from our vantage point, I think, to the extent that you're able to focus on KPIs the material to the enterprise value creation or the sustainable value creation of the business and kind of the two pieces trying to figure where to the concentric circles live for your organizations I think is great because what we found is sometimes folks can get caught up with over disclosing perhaps things that might not be material to a business and so trying to balance internal resources as you're new and emerging I think Justin you talked about this about smaller businesses and folks getting started you know I think trying to be intentional about the KPIs that are unique for your asset or your business or your value creation that also tie into the purpose of the organization and the positive contributions the organization believes it can have or desires to have on society, you know people are planet I think focusing on that so maybe having a little bit of like an internal discussion before going out to other frameworks and just grabbing what's available I think is what we've seen to be useful for folks but I'm sure the other experts on this panel have other remarks on that. Thank you very much and I'm very sorry that I have to drop in about four or five minutes, but thank you for flagging that Justin. And anything to add on to that. Not really I would just say I'm a point you made early about being busy Nick. We're really busy to like it is. It is a really busy space at the moment and I think you have lots of companies trying to demonstrate their impact potential as well. And you know from our perspective, the reason why we resolve stuff is so that we can work out whether that's, that's, that's true or not. And so with the amount of IPOs at the moment, it's really busy for us there's lots of opportunity which is amazing and hugely exciting. But also quite, you know, hard work, and we also like to get to know companies before necessary, they book the IPO so there is an iceberg of companies wanting to deliver deliver impact. Under the water that you just can't see that we're you know we're trying to meet with and understand more about and I think that it's going to make us very busy for next few years so you know anything that we can do and cast us can do and consultants can sort of spread, you know help expand the impact investing markets going to be really important over the next few years. So that was just on a previous point. I know we're getting some questions specifically about health care and low to middle income countries, but I know you can't be specific about too much about what's in the portfolio and or comments about that kind of new opportunity that you might be making might trip some regulatory wires for you but so I'll let you add the perspective there if you'd like but I'd throw it to the rest as well. I just talking about impact. The alignment of impact interests and how you put teeth in that I mean for someone like Bailey Gifford that to has blank has in the perspective to talks about a dual purpose. Every investment you're making has to generate a positive impact as well as competitive financial return. Any perspectives from the panelists and all about what more can be done or needs to be done in that regard and balancing those two or how do you ensure that both are not just checking the box that there's effort but that is truly intentional and being managed to the best of their ability and in both regards. Yeah, so to start there's a lot of questions in there about to the first one on the health care side and low middle income countries you know that's usually important question at the moment very relevant. There's a health care theme with health care and quality of life theme within our in our strategy. But to be very frank, you know, what it's very difficult within this space is to to identify those companies who are going to benefit low and middle income countries because of the nature of the health care industry tends to to be concentrated in developed markets first so that at the scale at which we are investing perhaps that's not so there's not opportunities but I just, you know, flag that as something that is, is a challenge and part of that is, is down to the data, the missing data, who are the patients who are being served and trying to really get to the bottom of that which which I guess is a, is perhaps a bit of a downside to the public markets is where it's quite difficult to identify that data, but not impossible and that's why we are resourced up. On the assignment side of things, I think one of the things we look at when we're doing our impact analysis so we look at product impact, which is what it says on the tin, we look at business practices which is more of a traditional ESG analysis, and then we look at intent of the company. What we found is that intent of management and the board is, is hugely important for delivering impact and actually it is the case with with, I'll give you Safari comm is a, is a Kenyon telecoms business which is which many people will know but it's in the portfolio has a very strong intent which runs deeply and the previous management and sadly the CEO who died a couple of years ago established a, a team within the sustainability team there, which has no budget, and which is specifically designed to look at serving their low income customers for example. So they're coming up with new really interesting products, one recently called Digifarm for small holder farmers which is just hugely exciting. And so when we're looking in that due diligence phase we're looking to see evidence of those types of structures and those types of, you know, strong missions to achieve impact. And so, very often, where we find that's strong and aligned. And the impact should, should happen. I don't know. I imagine that's, that's quite common but I wonder if you've all seen that as well. Nick, we will give you a kind of right before you cut out any additional comments to that or anything before you sing farewell. Okay, I guess the only thing I could add to that is to the question specifically on low and kind of middle income countries I think what we've found to, I think that's spot on terms of and identify, identify those businesses or companies or assets that you want to back I think what we've noticed is maybe a gravitation maybe in the private markets for some of those deals. I'm just given the size and kind of where they're at. Not to say it's not possible enlisted equities but I think that, you know, we think about our portfolio our hope would be to be able to pursue at least 25% of the portfolio and kind of emerging markets and largely private space to try and find and uncover those unique businesses and try and back them and help them skin. But thank you, I apologize that I have to drop them out but thank you very much for your time and so cat for for welcoming us to the stage. Thank you, Nick. I lean or or and I guess we will have to round it out just the three of us for the last couple of minutes. You know, one last question I guess I had in general was, if you want to reiterate anything, feel free. You have some additional comments to make or finish, but one last question in our final time would be fast forwarding 510 years ahead and if you have any additional perspective on what you would. We would hope to see in the this industry. What are the expectations as we look out, or possible guidance for where we need to go. So, a couple, couple of thoughts, and I think one touches on the discussion earlier about broadening the metrics for success to incorporate the ability to achieve the impact targets, along with meeting both investment return and risk metrics, as well as sort of the industry standard metrics for portfolio characteristics. I think the issue is one of aligning time horizon with expectations so it, you know in the healthcare example for, you know, public markets are measured on a very frequent basis, you know, returns are looked at often as frequently as daily but certainly monthly and quarterly. And, you know, public companies in general have a shorter time horizon because of the focus on bottom line profitability to shareholders. So I think this brings a little bit of the, you know, shareholder capitalism versus, you know, shareholder purview. I think that's a real tension that ultimately will become more front and center so that that tension along with that time horizon expectation I think. I think folks have to get more comfortable with accepting a longer time horizon for evaluating the overall success of their impact strategies, whether they be public markets or private markets or private markets that you know folks are used to adopting or not even going to look at results for at least five years and really it's going to be more like 10 years before I really realize my full investment potential. But in the public markets, that's a real challenge that that type of mentality doesn't exist and I think we have to overcome that in order for. The whole realm of impact and ESG strategies to really become more widely adopted by at least US institutional plan sponsors, particularly given, you know, sort of mixed signals from the DOL and the regulators in terms of, you know, what's appropriate for metrics to be considered in that investment or portfolio creation process. It's powerful and I couldn't. It's probably a perfect transition ed to give you 30 seconds to respond to that the focus on long term is I presume is right into plays right into Bailey Giffords overall strategy. Yeah, thank you for that. I think. Absolutely. I think impact investing in general is a long term game. And I would like to see and one of the reasons why we would like to see more people in the more investors, asset managers take on impact investing in the public markets is because system systemically, we hope it should encourage long termism which is really, really important. Things I'd like to see in the future I think we need to to get better looking at impact metrics and and valuations and investment performance together. I think there'll be some fascinating findings when we start to do some more analysis of that. Of that aspect of it, I think, I think it'll be really encouraging but at the moment I would say, you know, as I said, it's a long term game we need to be patient and I think over time we're going to see some some great things coming out of that. Any thoughts from you Justin I'm conscious we've been to that. Yeah, we're out of time I'd love to go into I agree with both of you long termism for sure and the patient capital. I'm being a part of that is so important. I think, you know, I could go into some more detail but unfortunately we need to wrap it's at the top of the hour. I appreciate both of your perspectives on this and for the socap guidance in all of this making it possible carry and your team and the socap community that's dialed in for this. This is really, I think, hopefully a meaningful discussion that folks found useful, and we hope to continue it in in future conversations. And again, Ed, I mean, thank you for the perspectives. And thank everyone else will be signing off now. Thanks all. Thank you, Justin. And thank you so cats and Bailey give.