 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to day three of SOCAP 2021. My name is Chris Herman, and I am a Senior Vice President with Enterprise Community Partners, where I'm responsible for our real estate equity business. Enterprise's mission is to make home and community places of pride, power, and belonging, and platforms for resilience and upward mobility for all. At Enterprise, we really have three focused goals, and that is first to increase the supply of rental housing because the current supply is inadequate relative to need. The second is to advance racial equity after decades of systematic racism in housing, and third to build resilience and upward mobility so that residents and communities can be more resilient to the unpredictable. My role at Enterprise is to imagine, create, and invest equity funds that align with these strategic priorities, and I'm really looking forward to an action-packed 45-minute conversation about how commercial real estate investing can be reimagined to be more inclusive. Under the current system, the wealth generated by commercial real estate tends to pass through communities and ultimately benefit already wealthy investors who often have no ties to that local community, and local residents, whether they be small businesses or renters of apartment homes or homeowners, are ultimately driving the value created by paying their rent and being active citizens in their community, but they're often shut out from the profits that they help to create. So today we're really focused on exploring some models that could allow for the local community to be a beneficiary of that wealth-building opportunity, and more specifically why that's so important as we collectively pursue a more just and equitable society. So I'm going to let the panelists introduce themselves as we go in the interest of time, but I'm really glad to be joined by practitioners, funders, and impact investors, and really just more generally a very thoughtful group of people to present to you all today. And with that, I'd like to welcome John Haynes to share a bit about the work Mercy Corpse has been doing with its community investment trust model and what they have learned about the positive outcomes of making local residents stakeholders in their communities. So John, welcome. Can you hear us, John? Okay, wow. There you go. I need to upgrade my computer, I think. The community investment trust was started by Mercy Corps. Mercy Corps is an NGO based in Portland. This is the first national project we do. We're otherwise focused on 40-plus countries around the world in crisis, conflict, and economic collapse. This surface, if I can go back to how it started, I had a, you know, the data was there that renters sort of the people that are kind of overarching group that were where poverty and and lack of upward mobility happens. Under that subsets of BIPOC, single mothers, disabled, etc. So I went out with some grad students who spoke a few languages and went to affordable housing projects in this one particular high rental area and also the lowest income or highest poverty census tract in Oregon. And I asked them, you know, what's changing in the neighborhood? What do you want in the neighborhood? Do you feel a part of it? And then I asked, do you save everybody to a person who said, now and then sometimes, but you know, not really, a little bit. And then do you invest? No. Why not? What do you do with 10 to 100 bucks a month? We don't understand investing. Woman said, oh, that's for other people. So then I postulated a couple of buildings that were in the neighborhood, not the one we bought, but a couple others. So if you could own this, and their eyes lit up, and they said, how? And I had no idea, of course, at that point. So I went back and we developed the community investment trust based on their needs and desires. Our chief goal is is well-filling and inclusion, family and community well-filling together. The key aspects to the CIT that are different is division commercial retail real estate. The neighbors come from four zip codes. So it's approximate investment. Again, 10, 25, 50 and 100 no more. They get a short-term annual dividend, ours is average 9% for four years. And the long-term share price return from debt repayment and then calculation on the change of value. And that's gone from $10 to $1,705. So we feel good about the performance. But the key thing, and we offer a class in moving from owning to owning, trying to get an owner's mindset and the owner's an upward path of understanding. The key aspect to this kind of the magic dust is we couldn't offer a C-corporation stock offering unless we provided immediate liquidity for investors and downside risk protection. And we did that through direct pay letter credit. So that really is a tough aspect to replicate. But it's it's one that's essential to do this is we have reworked in a dozen or so cities now around the country to help them help them replicate. So some of the outcomes and then I'll wrap it up. The we're touching who we wanted to touch. 68% that never invested in anything before. 54% make less than $40,000 on a family level. 49% were born outside the US. And beyond the financial performance, which is frankly essential, the the thing we do a deep survey and we've expanded it to say, you know, among things, are you more engaged in the community and how we ask do you vote when they're when they first sign up and have to be a vote afterwards, have to become an investor and two thirds vote and are more active in the neighborhood than they were becoming an owner. So ownership really matters. Okay, Chris. Thanks, John. I appreciate that. And, you know, I admire that you were sort of an early mover at Mercy Corps and creating ways for community people in communities to invest in their communities. And you've got a model where, you know, people are doing that and you're seeing sort of the real results of that. So kudos to you all on that great work. Kimberly, I know Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has been a big supporter of housing and many different initiatives over the years. And recently, you guys have started really deeply digging into the ownership concept and what it means for people to sort of have that pride of ownership, if you will, that stake in their own communities. So we'd love to hear how Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is approaching the space as well. Thanks, Chris. And John, thanks for that overview of the CIT model. I am hearing kind of your commentary about kind of the lack of investment options, reminded me of something I heard on NPR last night that 10% of the top earning Americans own 89% of the equities that are traded on the stock market. So a really powerful data point and kudos to you and Mercy Corps for trying to open up some new possibilities. As Chris said, I'm Kimberly Cornette. I am on the impact investing team at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. We are a relatively new team for the foundation, which is America's largest foundation exclusively focused on health and health equity. Our job is to use the tools of investment to accelerate the foundation's programmatic work. And while I think many of you will know RWJ from a very exclusive lens around health, in the short term time that I've been with the foundation, like many organizations, we've really started to take a different lens on health and really think about can we as a society really achieve health equity, which is the foundation school without addressing structural racism. And so the way that we are thinking about the work today is that really addressing structural racism really almost is a prerequisite to getting to health equity. And so my team has been thinking about how we use investment tools to move us closer to that goal. We have a $200 million allocation. It has three strategies. I'll touch on them briefly. One is around the community development finance system. So working with partners like Enterprise, CDFIs, housing finance agencies, minority depository institutions to ensure that that system has a ample supply of long term risk bearing capital so that they can deliver their products into low income communities. We have a set of investment, two investment areas of investment that we call program directed. So these are areas specifically coming out of our programmatic work. One of them is on ownership, which I'll go into more deeply, and one of them is on water. And then we have a body of work around racial equity, which is both kind of a cross cutting through everything else we do, but also a standalone effort that includes housing, quality jobs, and then some place-based effort. So that's just a quick encapsulation of the directions that the foundation is going. But I think what brings us to ownership actually is maybe something a little bit different than shelter and even wealth building. It really is born out of a programmatic interest that we have really around individual agency and community members really being in a position of power within their communities to drive decisions around community conditions and investment. I think the data around home ownership is well known. It's well-documented in history that home ownership has been actively denied to communities of color and there are significant barriers for those folks with low incomes. And so really our work is around not necessarily one house, one family, but it's really around a spectrum of appropriate ownership opportunities, which gives people more power in their communities and hopefully contributes to their opportunity to build wealth for themselves and also for their families. So we think about ownership from the power standpoint, but also because, you know, along with that comes other attendant benefits. Megan Sandel, who will be known to many of you, a physician at Boston Medical Center has kind of coined the phrase that safe and affordable housing is a vaccine in itself. So we know that there is a body of evidence that people are healthier both physically and mentally when they are safely and securely housed and we think that an ownership opportunity, you know, maybe is the booster shot to that vaccine that Megan talks about. There are greater educational advancements for children who are growing up in both safe and affordable housing, but also in, again, that ownership context. There's the wealth building opportunity and then there's this engagement, you know, owners, you know, have a voice in their community and we think that that's really important. So the way that we are approaching ownership is by looking across the spectrum of opportunities and thinking about who's already doing that work that we can invest in and then what are the enabling conditions that would better position individuals to be in a position to take an ownership opportunity. You know, startlingly, the Urban Institute says that 50% of white households have a FICO score of over 700 and only 21% of black households have the same. That's a significant barrier if you're getting into almost any kind of ownership opportunity. So that's one of those enabling conditions that we want to work on. I'll profile a couple of opportunities that we are in diligence on. I want to be clear that we haven't closed on these. One is, but they're illustrative of the types of opportunities that we're considering. One is with Rock USA, which is a CDFI, which finances manufactured housing communities, more crassly known as trailer parks, but gives residents of those communities the opportunity to finance the park and to own and operate it as a cooperative. We think it's a super powerful example of, again, that kind of individual agency and moving people out of a really exploitive set of housing conditions. And we're really excited to partner with them as a guarantor. And we're in that deal with Prudential, who is bringing that capital to it. Another entity that we're working alongside of is Fahi, again, a CDFI who has been offering a second mortgage product. So 100% of financing to low and moderate income homeowners, again, trying to get over one of those barriers that keeps ownership away from families, which is down payment assistance. And then finally, a transaction that some of our peers have already closed into, because it's really interesting, is a fund that is particularly focused on a very exploitive type of mortgage that gives the appearance that you are an owner, but also essentially doesn't give you any of the equity building opportunities of ownership. And we think that kind of very exploitive mortgage structure is something that, one, we should do everything that we can to reposition mortgages that are in that position, but also using grant funds to accelerate some policy efforts to try to eliminate that product completely. So I want to be clear that ownership for the foundation right now is still an area of exploration, but I think is very consistent with our goals around structural racism, health equity, and really utilize as well our investment tools. So I'll pause there and thanks for the opportunity and answering questions. Great. Thanks, Kimberly. So we're going to shift to Roy Swan of the Ford Foundation next. Roy, thanks for joining us. You know, the Ford Foundation brings a unique perspective as a grant maker, as a PRI provider, and ultimately as a mission related investor in the housing space as well as other areas. And certainly know at your core, your goal is to address the root causes and consequences of inequality in all its form. So we'd love to hear kind of how you're thinking of this space and approaching the different challenges we're wrestling with here today. Yes. Thanks, Chris. Can you hear me okay? Thumbs up? Yeah, great. Okay. So Chris, you've covered a part of my commercial and just to provide a little more. So the Mission Investments program was launched in 2017 and we have three capital tools. We have a $1 billion endowment to make market rate impact investments along our five investment themes, $350 million PRI fund to make catalytic debt and equity investments, and a significantly smaller grant pool to support the global impact investing ecosystem. And our footprint includes the U.S. and global south, which for us is Africa, China, India, Indonesia, and other parts of Southeast Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. So shifting, you know, multi-family affordable rental housing is one of our investment themes in the U.S. And we think about wealth building for renters in a simplistic way. There's a roughly 10 million unit shortage of affordable housing in the U.S. So renters are paying more than they should pay for housing because of that shortage. If there was a greater supply of affordable units, we believe it stands to reason that that means renters would pay less. And if renters paid less in rent, they could potentially save more money. So we allocate our endowment capital to support the increase in the number of units through affordable housing units, through preservation, new construction, and or conversion. But we also think about it from a capital supply perspective, and I just want to spend a minute on that. Given the shortage, I think, again, we think it stands to reason that the shortage of affordable housing units, if there was more capital available and dedicated to that asset class, there might be more units to lower the demand-supply-ness match. And so when you think about what affordable housing as a affordable rental housing as an asset class brings, you know, you're talking about a three to five percent, you know, cash on cash returns, long-term appreciation of call it five to ten percent, depending on the types of units, inflation, interest rates, geography, etc. All that delivered with very low relative risk. And some people think that multifamily affordable rental housing generates excess financial returns compared to the risk taken. We fall into that class. So for us, it seems like that risk return set of characteristics would be perfect for big pension funds, university endowments, foundations that need steady predictable cash flows. And for us, and we even believe it could be interesting for retail investors, our belief is that multifamily affordable rental housing that provides quality, you know, services for the residents can enhance quality of life. So I'll stop there, but right now our focus has been on multifamily affordable rental housing. And we believe that savings or wealth can be generated if there was a largest supply of lower cost rental housing. Thank you, Roy. So I'm going to share a little bit about kind of things enterprises thinking about next and how we're sort of approaching the space. You know, first as an organization focused on rental housing, we've been really focused on ways that we could address the wealth gap between renters and homeowners. We recognize that not all renters are destined to be homeowners. Yet, you know, there is a significant gap in wealth between renters and homeowners. And specifically, according to a recent survey of consumer finances, a typical renter has 40 times less wealth than a homeowner, about $6,200, compared to $255,000. And this is an inequity that we must address if our goal as a society is to have a more just and equitable distribution of wealth. To Roy's point, you know, we for decades as an industry have been really focused on producing quality homes that are affordable. And this is really important work that has to continue. Because I wholeheartedly agree, Roy, with your point that the supply-demand imbalance is what causes rents to rise, to become unaffordable, and for people to have less discretionary income to save and to create wealth. So that has to really anchor our work. It always has and will continue to. And at the same time, you know, we're thinking, we also think it's critical that we start leaning into this renter wealth issue for the people who ultimately live in these homes and ensure, you know, to this point, keeping rents affordable helps people, right? It helps them build wealth in that indirect way. And the more affordable we can keep rents, the more they will have to save. But we also think we can do more as a sector to accelerate their wealth creation. And that's kind of the question we're asking ourselves. How can we do that? How can we lean into this issue and be really proactive in our pursuit of closing that wealth gap? And we're exploring models, you know, that will allow residents of multifamily rental properties or apartment communities to have a greater stake in their community by making them a beneficiary, if you will, of some of the profits generated at their community. And so that's the kind of thing we're thinking about at Enterprise. And we've really kind of anchored this work in what we think is a three pronged approach to a successful shared equity model in multifamily housing. And it starts with resident services. We have been a supporter and advocate for resident services as an organization for many decades. And we believe they work, though they've been historically provided somewhat inconsistently at apartment communities. It's based on available funding or based on surplus cash flow. But we really think it's critical to our goal of building upward mobility for low and moderate income people to ensure that there is funding for resident services at apartment communities for low and moderate income people around the country. The second thing we're looking at doing in certain funds and properties is providing residents with an ability to participate in cash flow of their community when it exceeds a certain amount, you know, a certain amount required, of course, to pay operating expenses, to pay debt payments, and to pay required investor returns and, of course, maintain the communities at a good standard. But after that point, we're looking at ways where residents can participate in the success of their communities and specifically through rebates of their rents, you know, back to them on an annual basis proportionately to the profits that they, to the profit of the community or of the rent they paid from the profits of the community. And the third thing we're looking at, and we think this is one of the bolder goals of our vision, is actually providing long-term residents of the community with a housing-based wealth creation opportunity that's really historically been only afforded to homeowners. And our vision here is that residents, long-term residents of the community would participate in the value created in that community over time, thereby really starting to meaningfully close the wealth gap between renters and homeowners, excuse me. And specifically, not by making renters homeowners necessarily, well, that's a great goal, just kind of recognizing that that might not be for everyone. And instead by providing renters with indirect participation in the equity appreciation of their communities over time, much like what a passive investor experiences, but you know, without the requirement to contribute capital or pay a higher rent to get that. And you know, as I kind of started this session at the beginning, you know, our mission is to make home and community places of pride, power and belonging and platforms for resilience and upward mobility for all. And we really expect that by making renters stakeholders in their community, they will really achieve this greater sense of pride, power and belonging. And as a result, we'd expect renters to stay longer, to have a greater sense of responsibility in their community, and that this will ultimately translate into greater stability and cohesiveness of the community itself over time. And as great as this, as we believe this can and will be for low and moderate income renters, you know, I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the capital market side of this, right, that this that that an idea of this magnitude really, you know, requires a special type of investor to back it and be willing to lean into the unique social return that this offers in recognition that the financial return, you know, by definition would have to be less than other traditional investment alternatives, because you're talking about sharing it with the residents who live in these communities. And we believe that investors in this type of shared equity model can and will receive a fair and reasonable rate of return, but certainly that they have to be willing to leave some of the upside on the table to ultimately benefit the low and moderate income people who helped the community succeed in the first place. And, you know, frankly, an idea this unique probably wouldn't have gotten traction in investment communities five years ago. But we believe we're at a bit of a moment in time an inflection point in the industry, if you will, where many investors are willing to consider such a trade off. And we hope to harness that into, you know, real radical change in who the ultimate beneficiaries are of multifamily housing communities and investing. And so that's that's kind of how enterprise is approaching the space. And, you know, we're we've got about 15 minutes left in the session to address questions. So I'm going to take a look at the chat box here and see if we have any, you know, what one question I see is from Mark. The question is, do these wealth building models work in other sectors? For example, can residents earn equity in a community facility? While they are a resident, can they earn equity in a school while their children are attending? It doesn't solve the home ownership issue, but can create wealth and community ownership? You know, John, I might direct this question to you, since you kind of have worked in this space through the lens of commercial facilities. Okay, I'm having trouble with my connections. So if I cut off just ignore me or tell me when you can't hear. We see in cities, we have old schools with community space and, you know, subsidized space. It's a matter of how each project is capitalized. It can make that happen. So, you know, the answer is yes. A tricky part with some of the schools or something like that is, you know, this is put, you're putting a school which is publicly kind of, you know, a private, you know, a C corporation in your state, which I think goes at odds with the stability of the school, potentially the risk profile. We lost John there. He must have an unstable connection. So, you know, I'll sort of take on the opportunity to finish that question, Mark, but I think that, you know, I think that this concept, this kind of broader concept of shared equity can apply in multiple forms of real estate. You know, certainly there are challenges, right? We have to navigate our own challenges in apartment communities, you know, in terms of various subsidies that those communities benefit from and things like that. But what we found is, you know, the subject is worth the effort. The goal is ultimately worth sort of breaking those reasons not to do something down and dismantling them into something actionable. So, you know, John has a model where they've brought in community investors into retail in the community. We're looking at it through housing. I certainly don't see any reason why you couldn't look at it through private schools or community facilities. We've talked to residents in communities of Atlanta trying to join together to buy community facilities that they want to jointly use and operate. So, I think this is an emerging trend that's cross real estate asset. And we're going to see more and more of it in the coming years. Kimberly, Roy, anything to add to that question? I only note that, you know, I heard about an important public policy moved by the district of Columbia, which was announced this week, offering baby bonds. So $1,000 annual payments to children born between 2021 and 2025. You know, again, I think all sectors have a role to play in wealth building. And I think this is an interesting example of, you know, public policy shift. Those funds accrue to a child until their 18th birthday and then can be used for college home purchase or a small business startup. So, you know, right to the right problem. And, you know, those of us in the investment world, I think real estate is, you know, is often a vessel. But just to say that there's other important public policy opportunities. Thanks, Kimberly. There was another question from Kristen. And the question was, are you aware of good ways to address affordable housing issues through public equities? Curious, Roy, if you have any experience with this in the MRI portfolio, if you're aware of any publicly traded real estate companies or businesses that you guys have found that you consider to be, you know, interesting investees or just generally if there are opportunities to invest in public equities, you know, for the affordable housing space? Yeah, so at the moment, we are exclusively invested in the private markets. So private equity and venture capital. However, there are, so I don't know if there are any specific funds, but I see no reason why there couldn't be a REIT structure or other publicly traded structure that could open the door to greater capital flows. So that's an opportunity that I think is available. I mean, just to do some quick math. I mean, it's not a huge market, but if there's a, if you assume a 10 million unit shortage and, you know, very conservative $100,000 cost per unit, that's a trillion dollar market. And if you assume the equity component of that is roughly, that's roughly 30%, that's $300 billion. So that's a fairly, that could be a fairly liquid market for the equity required to build more affordable housing. So I think that's an area that has not been explored closely enough. Multi-family affordable rental housing private equity business has not been around that long. I think the largest fund is may have just crossed a billion dollars, but five years ago, the largest fund was maybe 250 million dollars. So it's a sector that's really ripe for growth. And I think, you know, enterprise is very well positioned from a number of different perspectives to take advantage of the opportunity, particularly given that the primary stakeholder for enterprise is the resident as opposed to some, you know, that's one of the advantages of being a non-profit. I'll stop there. Thanks, Ryan. Of course. I just, to build on Roy's comments, just put into the chat, community capital management, which is a fixed income manager, put together a fund with impact shares last summer that is focused on home ownership. And so that I just put a link to it for folks who might be interesting. Great. Thank you, Kimberly. Just going back to the chat. Adam asked, given the overall shortage of housing, Roy mentioned, what are the other main barriers to just building more housing in total? You see that need to be addressed. That's a great question. I think that, you know, there's multiple ways to answer it. I think that cost is, you know, we'd be remiss if we didn't acknowledge the cost barrier, which is really why new development of housing either has to be subsidized or target more of a luxury tendency and therefore be at the highest level of rent. And there are lots of innovators in the space really trying to tackle this question of cost and how can we bring down the cost of construction? You know, at least the controllables, you know, land is going to cost what it costs, but can we find new ways to build that ultimately brings down the cost? And, you know, I think we're sort of well on our way in that space, but haven't quite figured it out yet, right? If, you know, sometimes it's more expensive in the beginning to figure those things out because they're new and innovative. But long term, they pay dividends. And, you know, I think of, you know, 3D printing, right, or whatever that's called, the building houses, we're seeing that happen at a small scale. We're seeing containers used to build housing, right? There's innovation happening modular, of course, has been around for many years and is starting to really kind of get traction. So I think that's a big portion of it. The other side is the subsidy side and enterprises and advocate from a policy standpoint, both federally and at the state and local level, to bring new resources to bear. And certainly there's a lot going on in Congress right now that could result in more housing resources being produced or generated so that housing can be produced at a greater scale for people who need it the most at the lower level of the income spectrum. So those are the things I observe. Kimberly Roy, anything to add to that? I'll just add that. I think with a growing awareness of the risk reward profile of affordable housing, if you go back to the global financial crisis, I think the total default delinquency rate for affordable housing rental was in the... Fortunately, I think we might have lost Roy. So we'll let him come back and finish that thought. I guess I can just jump in, Chris, and say, I mean, I think to state the obvious, there's no silver bullet, right? It's any number of interventions. We've been talking internally recently about the recent guidance from Fannie Mae about counting rental payment history as part of a credit builder. I think you mentioned that there's any several really path-breaking opportunities within the reconciliation bill that could come forward. So I think it's a combination of new capital solutions, new technology solutions on the modular product types, and wedging affordability in whether it is home ownership or rental into little crannies across America. I think we've seen some really interesting work come out of Austin, their public housing authority, which I think is really on the leading front of trying to kind of, again, wedge that affordability in. But the housing crisis in America is just at untold proportions. And from an RWJ standpoint, we think that that translates actually out into health impact because of the financial stress and the mental stress that that puts on families. So for us, that's what kind of brings us to this issue is really what the physical implications are both at the family level and then at the community level. Yeah, thanks, Kimberly. And to add where I think Roy was going with his statement when he got cut off was the more private sector investors that find this space interesting from an impact standpoint and also a risk-adjusted return standpoint, the more resources exist to support more production and preservation. So I think you've got cost, you've got support from government and then private sector capital sort of all interacting with each other as barriers. The more of those things, the lower the cost can be, the better. And I think that's sort of the path forward here. There was a question about blockchain technology. I was curious if there's any scope of leveraging blockchain technology, perhaps platforms like Real T to tokenize properties and distribute the NFTs of it to the resident for the percentage of rent they pay. Super interesting question. And this is a kind of innovation that I think happens at these kinds of forums because a lot of us, myself included, are sort of probably know enough to be dangerous with NFTs and blockchain. But what I do know is that it creates a market. It has created sort of an interesting market for investment that's outside the public equity space or the private equity space. And so I think that it's a way to reach investors in a unique way. And I think to Roy's earlier point, the more investors kind of interested in this space, the more we're going to be able to bring that capital to do good in the communities around the country. And that I think is something that we should dig a little harder on as a follow-up. And it has been suggested to me, actually, in the concept that we talked about, what we're calling the Renter Wealth Creation Fund, where we're inviting residents to participate, that maybe that participation should be in a blockchain structure. And that that might be a way to, frankly, navigate through some regulatory hurdles around making individuals, investors. And blockchain has a little different dynamic to it in that regard. I also see a question from Matt about the subsidy going disproportionately to homeowners, more so than renters. Couldn't agree more. This is something Enterprise has been focused on for a long time in our federal advocacy efforts. Just the homeowner's mortgage interest deduction has been a tremendous vehicle for inducing homeownership and creating wealth of homeowners. And the same type of credit does not exist for renters. And while there have been sort of changes in that tax benefit that have limited it and leveled the playing field, if you will, as it relates to the standard interest deduction rising, which renters can take advantage of. I just want to point that out. There is still a lot of disproportionate tax subsidy going to homeownership. And there is a lot of research Enterprise has done that you can find on our website about the mortgage interest deduction and the amount of tax resources that go to rental housing versus homeownership. So Enterprise advocates for this. There is sort of a cross organization group that called the action campaign that advocates for expansion of low income housing tax credit and other resources. So I would encourage you all to check that out because that advocacy is happening and we'd love to have you join it so that the voice becomes louder and more powerful. Well, I think we're a minute out. I think John answered Lynn's question in the chat or directed some resources to her. And I think we've addressed all the questions. So I just want to thank all of the attendees for joining us today and listening to us share what we're doing and what we think is to come. I want to thank Kimberly, Roy and John for agreeing to participate here today. Your participation is invaluable and we really appreciate the perspective of all these different organizations. So thanks everyone and thanks Kimberly.