 Awesome. Okay, well, maybe we'll get started. Can I encourage everybody to come forward, join the conversation, perhaps? Excellent. Well, good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us. My name is Justine Alai. I'm the Director of Impact Investing at Weatherby Asset Management. And I'm joined here by a phenomenal panel of leaders in arts and cultural institutions, of which I know very little. So I'm going to let them do most of the talking. I'm going to let them introduce themselves and their organizations in a minute, but just to orient you a little bit. To my far left, you have Max Anderson, who is the president of Souls Grown Deep Foundation. Laura Kalanin, the founding partner of Upstart CoLab. Tom Campbell, the director and CEO of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. And Ravi Rajan, the president of the Cal Institute of the Arts. And so, as you can see from their titles and the names of their institutions, this is quite an impressive panel. I'll just mention that we have one more panelist who is unable to join us in person, but will be joining us via a pre-recorded video that will be interspersed within our comments. So really, what's the basis of this conversation that we're having today? I think it's been hard to miss a lot of the news perhaps that people have seen this year around the sources of donations to cultural institutions and museums, coming in particular from individuals and institutions that are associated with controversial issues like opioids, tobacco, firearms, private prisons. And so there's been a lot of conversation around what is the role of cultural institutions in accepting these kinds of donations from these kinds of sources. Well, similar to the conversation that we've had around foundations and their endowments and what their endowments are investing in versus what their grant-making activities are, I think that the natural question comes up of, well, what are cultural institutions doing with their own endowments? And how are they thinking about their role within the broader impact investing industry and how they can align their endowments with their broader mission and values? So that's really the purpose of today's conversation to hear from leaders on how they're thinking about it, how they approach the creative economy, and where they see opportunities. So I'm going to turn it over now to Laura Kalanen, who's going to talk a little bit about what Upstart CoLab is doing within the creative economy space. Great. Thanks so much, Justina. So Upstart CoLab believes that creative people solve problems, and increasingly we see that they're solving those problems by starting social purpose businesses. So we're disrupting how creativity gets funded by connecting impact investing to the creative economy. And the first place to start is, I think, to define that term in terms of what is the creative economy. It's the economy of art and design and culture and heritage. We've identified 145 industries by NAICS codes that we think represents what is the creative economy. This is based on how states and regions define their local creative economy. And what's interesting is states and regions reflect their culture, their identity through their creative economy definitions. So, for example, Michigan does not include food as it defines its local creative economy, but Louisiana does. And you can imagine why. Creole cooking and the spirit of New Orleans, why that's very important. So we looked across these 145 industries, but then we bucketed them into five categories that we think impact investors can relate to. Ethical food, sustainable fashion, social impact media with a special focus on film and TV and social impact video games. We have an other category for creative businesses that don't fit into those first three buckets, so that could include graphic design, architecture, things like that. And then the fifth category is around real estate, what we call creative places. So, looking at this, you might say, listen, food and ag is a big part of what impact investors have been paying attention to for a long time. What's so special about this? We're focused at that place within the whole supply chain where the local, sustainable, fair trade, raw material gets transformed by the creative. Where the local, sustainable milk is transformed into delicious artisanal cheese. And we recognize that creatives play a very special role and they're able to engage and intrigue new consumers to be thinking about why they want to buy the local, sustainable, fair trade rather than the conventional product. Why they want to engage in content that's been produced by women and people of color. There's a really special role that creatives can play so that in terms of creating the marketplace, so that all of the work that the rest of us have been thinking about and contributing to in terms of sustainable supply chains really has a place to land. When you start to think about the creative economy, and we're going to try to advance to the next slide, a creativity lens is a really good way to begin to recognize what's happening in the impact investing space that can be appealing to individuals who are art patrons, art lovers, creatives themselves who have made wealth and cultural institutions like those institutions represented by the folks here today. What we've done is started to look through a creativity lens and recognize that already there are funds and friends in the impact investing space that have been active in the creative economy even if they haven't fully realized it. So I'd like to just quickly share three examples to illustrate this. And there we go. Hopefully it didn't go too far. So first one, creative and community investment management. So as you may know, community investment management lends into platforms that lend to small businesses and others. They have a priority to fund women entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs of color returning veterans. That's how they deliver impact. More than 50% of the entrepreneurs they support fall into that category. But because one of their co-founders at CIM is a creative person himself, he was intrigued by creativity lens and put their portfolio through the creativity lens and recognized that about 25% of the businesses in the CIM portfolio are in the creative economy, which suggests a really interesting correlation that the creative economy is an on ramp to opportunity for entrepreneurs who are often overlooked and underestimated. Purpose ventures. You may know Purpose out of Basel in Berlin. They are promoting a steward ownership model for the companies that they invest in. Before talking with Upstart, they had already been invested in a cultural tourism business co-galleries in Berlin. They had supported a German music festival. We introduced them to an ethical fashion company. We introduced them to Creative Action Network, which is an artist platform. And they've really recognized that the creative economy is a way for them to drive the value that they're attempting to make in the world. Their new Purpose Evergreen Capital Fund that they're in the process of raising now is targeting that 60% will be deployed into creative economy businesses. They're now making this a feature of their strategy and focus. And then you may remember last year Upstart was here at Socap with LISC talking about a new fund for New York City, the LISC Inclusive Creative Economy Fund. We launched it at Socap a year ago. This was a proof of concept fund to demonstrate the role that creative places and businesses have always played in comprehensive community development. LISC was wanting to test if you build it, would investors come? If you created a vehicle that allowed people to target their capital to the creative economy, would investors want to do that as part of an overall community development strategy? We went out to raise $5 million, the fund closed in May having raised $6.2 million. And more importantly, it really demonstrated for the leadership at LISC how important this was for what they wanted to do next. They've identified a forward pipeline over the next five years of $100 million coast-to-coast in the creative economy and watched the space. Pretty soon there'll be an announcement about an opportunity for impact investors who want to target the creative economy to get involved with LISC. So those are just three examples of funds that we're familiar with. Folks who are usually at Socap and how they are making the creative economy more available to investors. I'll just say that the creativity lens is, I think, going to be important to help art lovers and cultural institutions see themselves in the mission-related investing and the impact-investing conversation. And the purpose of this conversation today is to recognize that $60 billion sits in the endowments of museums, performing art centers, art schools like Juilliard and RISD and Cal Arts. Artist Endowed Foundation started by people like Andy Warhol and Robert Rauschenberg libraries. Our cultural institutions are investors and they have an opportunity to be more than just physical anchors in the communities where they are. They have a way to demonstrate their values and their mission through their investment portfolio. They're not doing it yet. For the most part, they're on the sidelines of these conversations. But we think that given the spotlight they're under at the moment, it's a good motivation for them to start to think about how to be more engaged as investors and really reflect their mission in their portfolios. Great. Thanks so much, Laura. It's really helpful framing and an understanding of how the creative economy is clearly a part of the impact-investing space and how we should be broadening the conversation to include them within the big tent of impact-investing as well. I'm going to now ask each member of the panel to introduce themselves and their organization. Just provide a, please introduce your institutions. Give us a brief background on your history and as well as an understanding of your mission and values. So, Max, perhaps I can start with you. Sure. I'm Max Anderson. I'm the president of the Souls Grown Deep Foundation, which is a small organization that's dedicated to supporting African-American artists of the Deep South who were left by the wayside by the art world beginning in the 1930s and 40s during Jim Crow and beyond, and through geographic, racial, economic reasons were not part of the canon of art history, of American art, of the pre-war and post-war periods. And what we do is we take works of art that we own in our collection and we're putting them in the collections of leading U.S. museums, including Tom's Museum here at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco a couple of years ago, as a way of embedding these artists in the narrative of art history to get them what we believe they deserve in recognition and also the opportunity for their heirs and assigns to see an increase in the value of their work and if they're able to sell them down the road, benefit in a way that their parents and grandparents were not. With the placement of these works, which are usually sold at a 50% bargain price to the museums, we have some capital to play with, not a lot, but some, and that we're turning into grant support back to the Deep South, to the Black Belt, to Alabama and Mississippi and Georgia, to the communities that gave rise to these artists. So having been a museum director for some 30 years, as Laura was sharing, I was responsible in one institution for several hundred million dollars of endowment, but most museum directors are not in a position to inflect their judgment. It's handed over to the wise men, typically, who are responsible for the investment committee's activities and the director is, if not patted on the head, seen as somebody who takes care of the creative mission and leave the driving to us. But the awakening for me that Laura was responsible for some time ago was that the 5% that museums, that arts organizations typically spend, as foundations do, of their corpus devoted to their mission is great, but what about the other 95%? And so that is very much our focus today, is thinking about how we, by taking a paltry million dollars of our assets and directing them towards the investments that we're excited about seeing returns, but also seeing benefit to communities, that we can start to see an inflection point for arts organizations to look at themselves as aligning their investments with their mission, which to me is a critical next direction for the field. Thank you. Tom. I'm Tom Campbell. I'm the director of the Fine Art Museums here in San Francisco. The Fine Art Museums comprise two museums, the Legion of Honor in Lincoln Park, which is essentially a collection of European and classical art, a kind of Frick of the West Coast, and the De Young, which is the core of the collection, is American from Native American through to contemporary, but in the context of African, Oceanic, and Middle Eastern art. So as a whole, it's a kind of a global collection. Before this, I was the director at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Met, the endowment of the Fine Art Museums is relatively small in comparison to many of our peer institutions, about 65 million dollars for operating endowment. At the Met, I was involved with much larger endowment, it was about three billion dollars when I retired in 2017. But to Max's point, both there and here, and I think we're very typical of many museums, our endowments have largely been run by board endowment committees where the primary emphasis is return on investment. And social response and investment has only recently become a topic of discussion. And I think it's a critical issue. I'm happy to be addressing it today. Wonderful, thank you. If you have not been to the De Young, highly recommend it. And Ravi? So Ravi Rajan, I'm president of the California Institute of the Arts. You might know it as Cal Arts. This is an interesting institution that was founded by brothers Walt and Roy Disney. Its inception came from two older institutions in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Conservatory of Music, and the Shenard School of Art, those of you who know art and probably know Shenard very well. Ed Rushe and the like are all graduates of that institution, which is Cal Arts now. And both actually institutions played an important role for Walt as he developed Disney Studios. He would often send his animators, send the people that were working with him in the studio to Shenard and to the conservatory to gain more professional development, gain more training. And he would often mix it up where he would send the animators to the music school and the musicians and to the art school. Because he wanted a sort of cross training, because the space of animation was new. And so when both institutions were struggling to a certain extent and he knew their boards and their founders very well, he proposed this thing that Walt did, if you know Epcot, it's the experimental prototype community of tomorrow, right? As a utopian to say, could there be this city, this community of the arts where artists would come together and they would hit each other in creative collisions and they would work together and they would invent new forms that we hadn't thought about before. So from the existing forms of art, this new place would engender experimentation within the arts. So that was why Cal Arts was formed. We are in Los Angeles. And it is purposefully sounds like Caltech because the Caltech president, it was that R&D idea, right? It was the idea of pushing forward. And the Caltech president, I think, was part of this, part of imagining how that could be. You know, we find ourselves almost 50 years later, having many graduates and many people who are in the space and have done many innovative things. Some things I think that are interesting about Cal Arts, if you think about higher education, which is another sort of touch point, I think in this time in our community we have many presidential candidates on the Democratic side talking about free tuition. But what they don't say is that when they're speaking of free tuition, they're only talking about free tuition to certain kinds of schools. From that list are excluded schools like Cal Arts and, let's say, Princeton. Some of you may have read the Lewis Menand, I think, did something in The New Yorker as a book review about this notion of meritocracy. Princeton's student body is 2% from the lowest quintile of wealth, right? So the lowest quintile of wealth only is 2% of the student body. So, of course, they can be need blind in their admissions, but they aren't really creating access to that group, to that space. Cal Arts, because we don't rely on things like the SAT score when we're looking at students, really, anybody can come forward with a portfolio. And it's not even technique-based, as many art schools tend to be, right? Because technique is something that access to that kind of training is not available to communities. So it's an idea-based space where someone might come to the animation program and not have any animation under their belt at all. And that has resulted in our student body being 51% students of color. So this is interesting for an expensive private institution, but it is a big responsibility for us in terms of being able to provide that access. Because students claw their way into that school and they fight and fight to stay in and do it. And it feels that that burden is pretty significant. So in this space, it's interesting to think about our endowment, which is about $180 million right now, and how we would use that endowment. It's traditionally been invested in the same way these two gentlemen just described in terms of the investment committee. But how do we look at that as fueling the creative economy? Something that is one-fifth of the economy of the state of California at this point, which is $3 trillion, and is the fifth largest economy as a country in the world. One-fifth is the creative economy. So we're right in the middle of that here in California, and it's, I think, the ideal incubator for this conversation. That's wonderful. Thank you. Lots of opportunity. And as I mentioned, our last panelist will be joining us via video. Philippe Gabarot is the CEO of the Louvre Endowment Fund, and he will now give us a little bit of background on that. The Louvre Endowment Fund has been created ten years ago exactly, and it has been established by the Musée du Louvre as this team from a separate foundation, a private foundation, which purpose is to collect gifts and request and to invest them in order to send the proceeds of this investment to the Louvre Museum. Actually, our objective is to finance all the missions of the Louvre, which means acquisitions, restorations, fellowships, all that kind of projects linked with the artworks we have in the collections. The second thematic would be about the visitors, and the third mission is about the building itself, the Palace of the Louvre. Great. Well, I'd love to turn now to Tom. Given your experience at the Met and now with the Fine Arts Museums, give us a sense a little bit. You know, museums have not been part of the discussion of impact investing to date. From your perspective, what do you see as the trends and the realities in the museum sector that are affecting the ability of museums to align their endowments with their mission and their values? I think the interesting thing or the challenge about the arts is everyone vaguely knows the arts are good for you, and everyone takes them for granted. But in contrast to European countries where the arts receive considerable funding from the governments, arts in America are largely self-funding for historical and political reasons. And in the last 10 to 15 years, culture institutions are feeling increasingly under pressure from globalism, from technology, from shifting patterns of support and patronage. And as a result of this pressure, there's actually a slew of statistics that are now available and new research really beginning to drill down into why the arts are good for you. And I thought I might be helpful given that my dirty secret is that we're not doing social responsible investment yet. If I step back and give just a handful of overall statistics about the art and cultural industry, especially the museum industry, government research estimates that there are about 35,000 museums across the US of which about 48% are historical entities and about 4.5% are art museums. In total, that 35,000 number accounts for about 726,000 jobs and they are contributing about 50 billion to the US economy of which about 12 billion goes into taxes. Across the country, there are about 850 million visits to museums each year, far above comparative statistics say for sports. In terms of local economy, 68% of tourism in the States, that's defined by people who are traveling more than 50 miles for a reason, state of reason, 68% of tourism in the States is driven by the art and heritage industry. Each year there are 35 million US citizens who travel for cultural reasons and they spend roughly double on hotels, meals and other expenses than non-culture tourists. The presence of a cultural organization in a vicinity increases the property values in that area by about 20% over time. And of course, local arts and community development results in greater local tax revenues. In terms of culture institutions as community anchors, again a lot of research and a lot of this is indexed on websites like Americans for the Arts, the Association of American Museums and the AAMD Art Museum Directors Organization. So in terms of community anchors, research suggests that school students who are engaged with artistic activity are five times less likely to drop out of school. After school programs result in 5% drops in local crime, college students are two times more likely to graduate if they're engaged with the arts. And for adults, lifelong learners, 9 out of 10 say that engagement with the arts has introduced them to new friends and a greater sense of engagement with their communities. In terms of health and wellness, 68% of soldiers say that art therapy has helped improve their conditions. A 2016 survey showed that 73% of Americans believe that the arts give meaning to their lives. 43% of frontline clinical staff believe that art exposure increases their rate of recovery. Now in terms of diversity, a study undertaken between 2000 and 2010 found that in communities where arts organizations were established, there was a 75% reduction in income inequity. And many studies have also demonstrated that art engagement is a major factor in increasing empathy and reducing intolerance. 40% of 12th graders who are engaged in art, 12th graders who are engaged in artistic activities, 40% are more likely to have friends in other racial groups. So this is just a very quick sort of catchment of a vast amount of data that is really, I think, helping us to have greater understanding of what a major component the arts are of flourishing communities. But we are at this very interesting moment, especially in the museum industry. Many of the great museums across the country were set up as educational establishments between the late 19th century and the 1930s, 1940s. But over the years, as art history became more and more of a profession, those institutions became more and more focused in their programs, more and more specialized, giving them the air of elitism. At the same time, their business model, where they had to raise more and more money, became more and more about the black-tie garlands, kind of, you know, the rich donors, also reinforcing that image of elitism. Over the last 20 years, the pendulum has begun to swing back. Art institutions are working really hard to reach out to more diverse audiences, diversify their boards, their programs, and their staff. And we're seeing very significant upticks in attendance at art museums and art organizations across the country. But with that wonderful uptick in attendance, we're also seeing new challenges, because of course those new audiences, much more diverse, are bringing expectations with them. They're challenging the canon. They don't want just the same old repertoire of European art or colonial American art. So arts organizations are all grappling with how we rebalance our programs. And at the same time, because of the political polarization of the country, we're seeing new levels of activism in arts organizations. It's one hell of a lot easier to go and protest at your local art museum than it is at the White House. And I think in the last three years, really since beginning of 2017, we've seen a very marked uptick in museums as forums for protest, whether it's the protests about funding from carbon industries at the British Museum, whether it's an entate, whether it's the protests about opioid, the Sacklers, the Met, the Guggenheim and elsewhere, whether it's protests about individual trustees like Warren Canders at the Whitney or Larry Fink at MoMA, there's a readiness of people to protest. And I think one of the interests and maybe the canary in the cage was that last week, when there were protests at MoMA, some of these protests were directed at MoMA's investment strategy. The protestors didn't know about the larger investment strategy, but there was talk about fidelity, which apparently has investment in private prisons. So I think this is just all symptomatic of a much more heightened environment in which we're operating. And certainly I, as the director of one of the larger museums in California, I'll be looking carefully with my board, I think, at our investment strategy, because I think we need to align at least part of our investment strategy with our larger mission and goals. That's terrific. Thank you so much, Tom. That's an incredibly helpful context. And you may be at the beginning of your journey, but I would say that all that additional information you provided around the role of museums as community anchors and the data, the very valuable data you provided about how the arts and cultures touch every component of both our economy as well as our social lives is really important. So thank you for that. We're going to turn now to Philippe via video to talk a little bit more about what the Louvre Endowment Fund is doing around impact investing and socially responsible investing. The SRI approach was not really implemented in our investment strategy until three years ago. And three years ago I decided that it would make sense for us, because we are not a not-for-profit organization, to have this SRI approach. The first way of doing SRI was exclusions. So as a first step we decided to exclude controversial weapons. We thought that it was difficult for the Louvre Endowment, considering that, for example, wine was very cultural in France to exclude alcohol. And then the type of SRI approach we decided to implement was impact investing. The idea was to complement the missions we were financing in the Louvre through impact investing in our project. Currently, the SRI and the impact investing assets we have in the portfolio is only 3% of the portfolio, but we decided a few months ago to include them from 3% to 5%, which means in your terms moving from 8 million euros to around 12 million euros. It could sound quite small, but actually we are only 250 million euros. Great. So now we've heard from Fleepe in terms of where he's been with the Louvre's journey through impact investing. Ravi, perhaps you can give us a sense for where you are and CalArts. Sure. I wanted to underline something that Tom said about this notion of comparison within the creative economy, which is that in the United States the creative economy contributes more to the GDP than transportation or agriculture. So both of which have a minister as it were underneath the president. So it's something to remember in the space as we talk about this and people have doubts of whether the creative economy plays a place in what we do. So it's more than just California. But CalArts, and you made mention to this in terms of fossil fuel investments and that happening. So CalArts, one thing those of you who know art schools out there and CalArts is a leader in this is this notion of protest or this notion of social idea is always at the forefront of the artists who come to CalArts. CalArts defines itself as a community of artists where artists come to better themselves, better each other and better the world. And that has been since the beginning. And in September 2012, a majority of the student body at CalArts came together and requested that the Institute eliminate all its investment in energy companies that were deriving profit from fossil fuels. So during that academic year, the investment committee of the board along with the students, the faculty and the staff all came together to work on that issue. And at the time there was both direct investment and indirect exposure to fossil fuels in the investment portfolio. So it was not an easy thing to start to strategize about because with an investment portfolio, you don't just suddenly flip a switch. But it was a great opportunity for I think the community to understand how investment portfolios work and how doing something like this would take certain steps and milestones and they'd have to figure out how to do that. That moment was important globally for the attention that was being played to climate change. And you made reference to that a second ago. Students were a large part in the United States of motivating that attention. There was an initiative you might remember of 350, 350.org, which was started in 2008 and named after 350 parts per million, which is the safe concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It was really a driving force for this. So that was started in September 2012. By 2013, over 200 college and university student bodies had signed on to this petition for fossil fuel divestment at CalArts by the end of 2014. We were able to eliminate all direct investment in companies deriving profit from the use of fossil fuels. So that happened in a matter of about one and a half academic years, one might say. In addition, in 2015, we added an environmental, social and governance consideration section of our investment policy. And that section states, CalArts seeks to be mindful of the impact of its investments on environmental, social and governance matters important to the community. And that fund managers may be directed by CalArts to invest in accordance with the institute's position on community responsibility. It also states that CalArts will continue to monitor its portfolio holdings for exposure to issues related to CalArts's values regarding environmental, social and governance factors. So today, almost all of CalArts investments in equity funds have been moved to those funds that exclude fossil fuel investment with the remaining equity funds focused on areas that do not include that exposure. So indeed, even these funds, these vehicles to be able to invest came about because of initiatives by investors like CalArts and by these kind of initiatives you talked about in England, too, which in Europe it started, I think, slightly before, closer to the 2008 period. In addition, we continue to have no direct investment today in fossil fuels. And as of this quarter, we've reduced our indirect exposure to fossil fuels to 2% of the investment portfolio, which is half of the responsible investing benchmark on this issue. So this is the kind of thing I think that we are talking about right now that policy is something that, you know, I think boards can adopt because that gives them the leeway. Sometimes these arguments can be difficult. In that time, I think it was CalArts found itself having to do a lot of analysis, but wanted to lead with its community values first and how do you put that out first knowing that these issues were going to come up moving forward. So while fossil fuels, I think, was the first space that this has happened, things like munitions, arms, all these things that are coming into play right now are all fit within those things. CalArts is now able to, I think, engage that. But related to this, I think, is the other concept of how we might use our own endowment to engage more actively, not in a passive fund way, but more actively within the creative economy itself. The beneficiaries of which are our own graduates as well as the museums and cultural institutions. So that's something, again, as a responsible, if those are our values and those are our targets, that's something that we need to start thinking about. And it's something that the institution is really kind of thinking about how to restructure itself to do that, I think, in a much bigger way than it has. Yeah, that's incredibly helpful just to understand how you've made progress over time. As we all know, this is a journey and you've sort of started with the divestment and then the ESG integration and now shifting more towards a proactive, positive, creative economy lens. That's wonderful. Good luck with that. Max. Yeah, I think it's instructive to think about how some of the larger institutions and the more developed economies like California's are taking these strides. Working for a foundation that focuses on the deep south and the black belt in particular and where poverty is so extreme. Wilcox County, Alabama where the quilt makers of G's Bend live and work is one of the two poorest counties in the United States. And the lack of resources, the lack of access to employment, to good food, to jobs is so extreme that we're starting with a premise that our investments have to have benefit to the communities there. Because in addition to thinking about scraping off the barnacles of arms and fracking and big pharma, we think that's a starting point. The real direction for us is how do we start seeing tangible benefits to the communities who gave rise to the artists with which we're concerned. So we're looking now at specific vehicles where we can find benefit both in the creation of infrastructure, of employment, of tourism, of different aspects of improving quality of life for people living in the deep south, for whom a city is even a dream. Montgomery is the big city in Alabama or Birmingham. And south of Selma where we operate, the poverty is so extreme that access to the normal resources that middle class America takes for granted are nowhere evident. So we have a much deeper dive around the creation of access points and Upstart Colab is helping us identify ways of investing and ways of supporting these populations that have really not ever had a break and access to anything related to what we call the American Dream. Thank you so much. We're going to turn now back to Philippe. Tom provided context earlier regarding the role of museums within the community in understanding that larger creative economy. We're now going to hear from Philippe about how he sees the intersection between the larger creative economy and impact investing. We decided to identify four thematic that we would try to integrate in our portfolio through impact investing. The first one was education. Clearly with 50% of the 10 million of visitors every year we have, which are under 30, we have a very strong, the museum has a very strong educational impact. The second thematic was about artisan crafts. The third one was about restoring the French heritage. The fourth thematic, which are currently working on and which should be integrated in portfolio in two or three months time in October, is about cultural tourism. Artisan crafts and cultural tourism are two thematics that we thought that would be addressed through traditional impact investing, which means basically taking shareholders on some companies which are operating in this field. We will work with a private equity asset management company in France called FL Investissement. We are actually the main sponsor of the firm, even if we are not the main investor. It's a firm that will be targeting around 100 million euros until 115 million euros, more or less, of capital invested. The Louvre Endowment has played a very strong role in creating and defining the target impact of this new fund. We have been working with FL Investment over the last year and a half, and we clearly had to enlarge the initial scope of the fund. We enlarged it by adding cultural real estate and cultural infrastructure. Basically, the infrastructure will be operating in museums outside of Paris. On the real estate side, the idea will be to buy, I don't know, castles or abeas or whatever. That will be, of course, open to the public. We are also considering operating some small hotels in parts of these buildings. The firm manager of the Artisan Crafts Fund Integrated in Portfolio two years ago is the Swiss Bank Mirabou. They launched that fund two years ago and the idea of that fund was to finance and invest on some traditional artisan crafts companies. With a long history, some very skilled employees, they were mainly targeting traditional clients that they had for ages. Whereas with the idea of expanding the type of clients, there are skills which are really the result of centuries of Artisan Crafts' work. It's a fund that Mirabou proposed to us. We thought that it was really a line. I think that Mirabou was very happy to have the Louvre Endowment in their investors, and we have been asked by them to speak to a new investor to make sure that they would enter and invest in the firm. So even if we were not sponsors, we may sponsor, I think we have been a kind of very visible investor. We are able to make sure that these skills will last forever, or at least for another century. If they would be disappearing, it would be really complicated for us to, for instance, give the frames of the paintings we have in the Louvre, that kind of central needs for the Louvre. Great. So we've heard Philippe and Tom as well talk about cultural tourism and Artisan Crafts, and Yuval mentioned various ways, but Max, is there anything you would add in terms of the sort of connections between impact investing and the creative economy, any other examples you might highlight or investment opportunities? Well, I think the museum sector broadly, as we've discussed, has punted a bit to think purely about return on investment. And the fact that museums are situated often in cities or communities that, as Tom has mentioned, have to have a connection to that institution that goes beyond a program it presents and have to have more enduring and deeper connections. Looking at investment opportunities that will benefit the local community or the regional community seems so obvious today. It wasn't obvious until this conversation really got underway some years ago. So I think that in itself will be an important ingredient of how investment committees and CEOs of institutions, both museums, artists and doubt foundations, other arts organizations look at their role, not as passive investors alone, but also as engines and catalysts of thinking about how to benefit their communities with opportunities for artist housing, with opportunities for the promulgation of creative industries that are allied with or sympathetic to the mission of the institution in particular, because that's how museums and libraries and universities and arts organizations more specifically can build a filament to future audiences, future supporters, and in a larger sense, future trustees who will be invested in the same outcome. I think I'd just echo what you've been hearing specifically if we're thinking about Southern California and Los Angeles. Those of you familiar with Los Angeles know probably a district downtown called the Arts District, and artists often refer to it as the so-called Arts District because it was a formerly industrial area of downtown Los Angeles that was relatively vacant. Sounds familiar for those of you who understood Chelsea's space in New York City. I think a number many decades ago. And artists had taken up space because, of course, industrial spaces like this beautiful space that we're sitting in right now are perfect spaces for artist studios, for artists to create work, to speculate, to produce. I mean, it's almost like many manufacturing that artists do. They do rapid prototyping. There are all sorts of things where you need kind of an industrial space. So artists had populated that space with studios, would live work spaces, et cetera, et cetera. They found it the price per square foot affordable. This was not a desirable part. It's adjacent to Skid Row. It had lots of homeless communities who lived in and around it. And we find ourselves today with the Arts District having a new metro station. The Southern California Institute of Architecture is there. House Earn Worth has their location in Los Angeles. And new apartment towers have gone up everywhere. Warner Music has moved from Burbank to downtown. They're opening a Soho house there in that neighborhood. So you get the idea. It has turned into much more rapidly, I think, than Chelsea, but turned into the same kind of thing, which should surprise no one. And so hence the so-called Arts District because artists don't really live in the space. So this notion of space, artists need space and they need time to make work. And that's essential in terms of requirements to drive this creative economy. And I think those are direct investment ways where places can look at it. It's something that CalArts is immediately going to engage. Our metaphor being a community of artists. We got to understand that those space and time elements are important. So thinking about where artists live, how they work, and how they can have proximity with each other. The other thing that is critical, I think, for artists to have is a dialogue with each other. They're critical to each other, with each other. They bounce ideas off of that. That notion of critique has always been at the center of what CalArts does as well. So I think these are all great opportunities and something that CalArts is going to get more actively involved in in Los Angeles, especially since Los Angeles is such an engine for this in terms of creative economy. So I look forward to having partnerships with cultural institutions that have this amassed wealth and have to think about the way that they invested and that we could invest it in these ways that help the artists who will be exhibiting in those museums, who will be creating work to play in those concert halls, et cetera, et cetera. So I think that that's a real smart way of not only getting return on investment, but return on investment that has sort of a double impact. But Max, those issues that you're talking about in communities are exactly the ones that are issues in big cities as well. Los Angeles absolutely suffers from those things, and I think that's another direct way that we can be involved. CalArts has a community arts partnership that has been going since the 90s, which is a great track record. We were just assessed some of the performances of some of these initiatives. One was in high school, and the four-year graduation rate of that high school was in the 40s, 42%, 38% in that zone, and the students that were in this sort of after-school community arts partnership program, it was above 90%. So that small difference, again, it's because when you're involved in this art-making, it's not because you might become a future artist necessarily, but this process requires you to create something. It means that your voice matters, it means that it counts, it means that your ideas are valid. That validation is super, super important for every human being to kind of have that substance of existence. People often are like, well, how would you give that validation to someone? It's pretty simple, the arts do that when you teach it to them. It's like teaching creativity, or you can't teach creativity. Turns out you can because it's a habit of mind, right? You might not be able to teach creativity at some level, certainly, right? But you can definitely give young people access to that, which they have within themselves, and that's, I think, what we could see that could work within these communities that Max you're describing. I'm very excited to learn more about what's going on there. Yeah, and there's obviously very powerful impact as well as financial value that comes from that, so thank you, those are really helpful examples. Is there anything you would add, Laura or Tom, to that? Okay, great. Well, I would love to, I want to make sure we leave some time for questions, so I'd love to hear from the audience. Yes. Well, I could speak more candidly probably than my colleagues on the stage, because I no longer work for an organization with hundreds of millions of dollars of endowment, but I was director of the Whitney Museum of American Art for several years, and we had Philip Morris as a major supporter. They paid for a branch museum on 42nd Street for the Whitney, and it was a source of enduring discomfort for the staff. It only closed, I think, in 2007, and as a function of that, I became very concerned about how the museum's investment philosophy was unfolding and brought it up in the investment committee, but at the time, this premise of coupling philosophy with ROI was just unthinkable, and since I was an arts person, not a business person, my opinion wasn't taken with great seriousness, but I think it educated me quickly that I needed to define trustees and recruit trustees who saw this as an essential value in their thought systems, and I think that increasingly is the case. I think also, as Laura can attest, Wall Street is filled with ESG-focused support and endowment support in terms of where investments are now happening, Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch and so many other of the big Wall Street entities are deeply embedded in thinking about impact investing. So I don't think it's a big leap today, as it was 20 years ago, and I'm hopeful that's going to increase. And I'll just chime in. I was asked to present to an investment committee for an artist endowed foundation a couple weeks ago, and their current outsource CIO, a very conventional firm, they don't actually offer ESG or sustainability to their clients. The investment committee was quite interested in this, and at the board level, there's been a lot of questions and leadership, and they want to head the institution in this direction, and I think it's smart because this is an artist endowed foundation that funds artists, and artists are provocative, and artists are curious, and artists are working on issues around environment and immigration and labor, and all of these social themes, and at a certain point are likely to look back and find out where their fellowship or their grant came from, and, you know, can sort of hold the mirror up to their funder. What was interesting in this conversation is it was, frankly, the staff, the leadership that was more reticent to pursue this idea of aligning the endowment with the organization's mission, and it's because the mission is rather narrow in terms of a focus on one part of the larger arts world, and the executive director was very confused about how narrowly or broadly to interpret its mission when applying it as a guide for investment decisions. So it was a good lesson for me about the work that we're trying to do at Upstart Colab to understand the range of investment opportunities that can be closer in to things that directly serve artists like the Creative Action Network, one of the companies that Purpose Ventures has invested in. It's a platform that allows artists to make their images available. They're put on home goods, they're put on t-shirts, and the profits are split between a nonprofit working on the social issue that the image is related to and the artist who originated the work, right? So that's very narrowly focused for visual artists, whereas affordable housing for creatives or, you know, some of the other things, the workspaces, some of those things people might feel like are a little bit further distanced from what could be the bullseye of how to interpret their mission. So I'm blessed when I came, my board chair, one of the first things he said, Tim Disney, we have 51% students of color. Why is the board not 51% of color and the faculty and the staff? So the students are showing us through what that is. It needs to be reflective of what that is. And, you know, that's the board chair, right? So, again, I think I'm very blessed that the situation I described with the fossil fuels unfolded before I was the president. So the board is very cognizant. You heard as I was talking about it, the board went directly to the faculty, the staff and the students and engaged in a dialogue around that. That's not often what happens. So I think one thing that's key to this moving forward is to understand that tension, Max, that you were talking about between the staff and the board and these things, and definitely putting those things out in the open and discussing them. Keeping those things hidden or figuring out how to balance them, particularly as the CEO, really put yourself in a bad situation. So, I mean, my concept of leadership is to basically make open those pressures and say, these are something that we have to get through and understand together. So the other part of your question, and it's related I think to some things people have said, is that the fund managers themselves are absolutely reticent to do this because often they're directed a certain way. Their own experience has been a certain thing, and this to some of them are new, despite the fact that there are ex-fossil fuels and there are these funds that exist, right? It's a different, might be a generational shift, I don't know. In fact, as recently as this last cycle, our investment advisors gave us an energy company option to be able to invest in, and the investment committee was like, okay, oh, so this is a renewable energy thing that you're putting in front of us, right? I'm like, no, no. It's like, well, so why is it even coming up, right? So that tells you an idea of the, and we didn't change investment advisors. So they're well aware of all of that. They were around when that went through. I think that, and I'm not sure why that was the case, as if that sort of fossil fuel investment in this point would have been wise in terms of its equity footprint. But the investment committee didn't seem to budge. In fact, they questioned why it came up, so let's hope that that doesn't come up again. Maybe they'll listen more closely next time, yeah. I think we have time for maybe one more question. Anyone have anything? Pertain affordability in those spaces. We're working on perpetuity, but we're not there yet. One of our biggest challenges in the cultural heritage, but I'm also curious as you're going through this process, are you finding examples and ways to work in those physical communities? Well, that's our exclusive focus, yeah. And the quilt makers of G's Bend, who are celebrated for the contributions they've made to American visual narratives, became the subject of a major exhibition that toured the U.S. in a second exhibition. They're still working there. They're still third generation, my board chair is a third generation quilt maker from G's Bend. So the foci in our case is very specifically on how that community can remain a center of creativity and a hub of the American experience in ways that are really not known to the majority of Americans. And for us, I think, as in Philadelphia, where there is such a rich heritage and history, looking at the institution as an anchor, not as something that's meant to break away from the origins of its community, but instead to reinforce them is the norm. And Tom, you were talking about that last night. That's very much the mission of every art museum is to think as the Philadelphia Museum of Art does, the Barnes, the University of Pennsylvania Museum. They're all thinking about the same issues in every city across the country. I mean, we haven't exactly started the work, but that's absolutely, I think, front and center of the concerns that come forward. And I seem to think that, again, like I suggested before, those things have to be right on the table in terms of working with the communities. I mentioned before it was our community arts partnership CAP program that we do, arts in different communities. But I always emphasize, since I've come, that P is partnership and not parachute. And that the idea is that often in these initiatives, you go and say, oh, you don't have access to music, so we'll give you music lessons. They don't want music lessons, right? You haven't really asked into the community, what are the things, what's the culture that exists already? What are the norms that they want to do and how can something creative work in that space? And again, Cal Arts being something that's the multidisciplinary art, it's not visual art or it's not a music or it's all of those things together that allows us to basically say, oh, that's interesting, you're thinking of XYZ and then cultivate students, basically student teachers, student faculty members who could come in as artists and go into those communities to do that. So then thinking about how we can actually create a program to engage artists in how they can do this work themselves. That's another thing that we're trying to sort of formalize, because it's something we've been doing for a number of couple of decades now and it's important work that would further, I think, what you're talking about in terms of partnering with people who are doing these kind of space investments. That's great. Well, thank you so much, everyone, for joining us. I think this conversation may have started with a lot of the controversy and activism that's happening around the sources of capital, but I think what you're hearing from this panel is the leaders of arts and cultural institutions are putting a lot of thought into how they can activate the full spectrum of their capital, so not just their 5%, given their critical role as anchors within the community, understand that full spectrum of a capital and how they can harness that for missions, so their community capital, their cultural capital, and the $60 billion in investment capital that is available. And it's not just tapping into that capital, but recognizing that there are real, wonderful investment opportunities. When you broaden that lens of what the creative economy means and how it touches upon every facet of your life, there's real economic opportunity here as well, and so it's really exciting, and I'm happy to see everyone along in their journeys.