 I think we have a really interesting session here about one of the first Nordic impact funds and how they came to take action at that. And for those of you who were here yesterday, I think it's kind of a bookend maybe to the session with Hampus Jacobson, the tech entrepreneur who is just tiptoeing into thinking about investing in impact and trying to figure out what discount to return he should expect with a fair trade coffee chain or something like that, where he's just tiptoeing in and he's not quite sure about it. Here we have some folks in the Nordics who have taken real action doing one of these first funds and then we also have an investment banker from JPMorgan, Tony Rosenholm, who is looking at this in the Nordic countries, in Europe globally and in lots of geographies all over and they're starting to understand what is the profile of an impact investor and how do they think about their money. So what we would like to do is put a Nordic fund in broader context. So we have Paul Dale in the middle who is leading Voxtra, one of the first Nordic impact funds and then Teleth Thorliff is here in two roles and so we find so many people in two roles here. He's one of the lead investors in Spotify, one of the great Swedish tech companies, the online music sharing, link to Facebook kind of thing, which I like, and my friends like and I discovered the music my friends like and yet he's on the investment committee is helping figure out how to tell the story of Voxtra to folks who are greatly different than people who would have invested in one of the three or three or four, three north zone funds that you've raised that are on the cutting edge of technology. So Paul, if you could just set the context of what is Voxtra and just talk about what it is and then we want to put it in broader context on how you raise the money and who that made sense to and then Tony will put it in a broader context. Thanks. Yeah. So in Voxtra we've recently raised a fund that will invest in agricultural businesses in East Africa that enables small holder farmers to increase their productivity. And I'll just say a little bit about the situation of smaller farmers in Africa because that's really what was the starting point for us when we set up this fund. Smaller farming in Africa is characterized by very, very low productivity. If we take maize, which is the most important crop in the region, a typical small holder farmer gets about one hectare, one ton per hectare, while good farmers get about 10 times that, larger farmers. And even good small holder farmers should be able to get five, six tons. So we're talking about a productivity gap of five X and this is very much the root cause of poverty in Africa because most of the poor people in Africa are smaller farmers and if that productivity gap could be addressed there would be much less poverty, much less hunger and malnutrition on the continent. And so this fund aims to invest in companies that provide quality inputs to smaller farmers that can be improved seed varieties that can enable them to double their yields. It aims to invest in processing and trading companies that source from smaller farmers, getting market access that is also one of the bottlenecks to addressing that gap. So that's sort of the mission of this fund. We closed it in November last year with 65 million Norwegian Kronor. That's around 11, 12 million dollars. That capital comes from Norfund, the Norwegian Development Finance Institution, about one-third and the remaining from around 10 private investors out of Norway and Sweden. That's high net worth, that's the foundation, it's family offices, etc. The fund also has a technical assistance facility that we raised from NORAD, the Norwegian Bilateral, which will enable us to do technical assistance projects in our portfolio to enable these companies to grow and scale more comfortably. And then we said that we will invest this capital in around 10 companies. Our ambition is to enable those companies to grow so that they reach 200,000 farmers more than they did previously and increase incomes so that the return to poor communities in Africa equals at least 8x the money that we invest. Those are the targets that we set for the fund. And then we promised our investors that this is a new thing. Not very many people have been doing this type of investing. All sizes, one million, one and a half million dollars into each company. So we can't go out there and promise private equity type returns with that lack of data and track record. We're saying that it's definitely going to be possible to return the capital with a positive return, but if you want to invest with us, you're definitely investing for the impact and to preserve your capital and generate a moderate positive return. So that's, I guess, the basics of the time. And this is a new kind of investing. This is a new way of investing. And it's also, VOXTRA isn't what it started out to be. VOXTRA started with another concept and evolved. Can you talk about how you went from venture philanthropy to actually being an impact investor yourself? Yeah. I can give that a crack. As you said, VOXTRA started some four years ago. The idea at that point in time was that we saw that there was an increasing amount of quite wealthy people in the Nordics who we thought and still think could be willing and interested in giving money, in being philanthropic. There's not a long tradition of that in the Nordics because we feel we've been paying so much tax. So I think we leave it for the state to do that. But it's changing. And we saw also that a group of wealthy individuals in this part of the world who are willing to set aside some of the money for doing something good. But there's also, for some good, but also not so good reasons, strong skepticism towards the traditional NGOs, towards the larger, the Red Cross type of organizations. Because there's this perception that so much is lost on the way before it ends up in a project in, for instance, the developing country. And therefore, we had the idea that we should build up a team that could help to channel some of those funds and get these funds and put them into projects where we could measure and where we could have a real impact and where we could use some of the same skill sets and methods that we use as investors in our daily jobs and to use that in philanthropy. We have been working on that for some years and doing that and involved in some projects. But it's fair to say that it's tough to raise funds still. We still have work to do. And a couple of the projects that we got involved with were projects that were also market-based, where we supported companies but with grants as opposed to invest. And being an investor of background and as we like to use the market mechanism somehow, we started developing the idea how about investing as opposed to giving grants. So it was from skepticism to giving and the non-profit philanthropic method and efficiency that made you want to become an actual impact investment fund in the market, using the market, being subject to the market, including showing your return. I mean, not necessarily skepticism to giving but rather seeing that that's based on our skill set, what we are good at and also believing that. But also not wanting to give to inflated non-profits. So the efficiency of the market was one of your goals. That's right. Applying the efficiency of the market to doing good, yeah, yeah. And we're also seeing that for investors and for wealth individuals, it's a bigger decision to give away money than it is to invest, even if the investment is high-risk. And that's really in the Nordic context. Pal, did you also have folks who came from giving who had to think about investing as doing good? Or was it mostly business people who said, I want to use what I understand to do good? Did you have people coming from giving saying, gee, this is a more efficient way? Most of our investors are people from the business community coming from that side. We also have a foundation among our investors who have been used to giving and are still giving, of course. And definitely saw it just that way as you described, that this is an exciting new way of creating impact. And it can have the advantages of creating something that's inherently more sustainable than what you typically get to through more traditional types of philanthropy. So they were a donor saying, this is more sustainable, more financially sustainable kinds of things, yeah? And not necessarily as a replacement, but as an add-on to there. So they're investing out of their endowment and not out of their grant money into this fund. So we have business people and investors who are adding the market mechanism to their way of doing good, and that makes sense to them. And for the donors, this is a way to add on, but it's a new way to do things. I see people coming in from both doors in a lot of sense into these funds, Tony, at least in the ones where it's individuals and foundations. Can you put this in context of what you're seeing as these funds are rising? Can you talk about numbers and talk about investor profile? Yeah, no, absolutely. So when we, just as a way of background, so JP Morgan has a team called Social Finance. And what we do, the team is very much run as a business. And we invest JP Morgan's own proprietary capital into impact investment funds. We also produce market research that goes out to private bank clients, family offices, and institutional investors. And we, some of the funds that we invest into, we also place with institutional investors and private bank clients. So just as a way of background in terms of the investors that look at impact investments, including ourselves, what we see is that we assess investments alongside or basically along a metrics where we look at impact, return, and risks. And we have investments that we look at more as a capital preservation opportunities where you have low yielding investments. And then further to the right of that axis, you have funds or investments that yield closer to commercial return. And as a function of the maturity and the scalability and the location of those investments, you will either find yourself on the left hand side of that axis or more towards the right. So what we're quite focused on is to get the right investment opportunities to the right investors. So you will tend to see that the investors that can look at capital preservation opportunities or low yielding opportunities tend to be the investors that do not have fiduciary responsibilities. So- These are individuals, family foundations. Those are individuals, family foundations that can effectively take some more risk and also do not have minimum return threshold requirements. When you look at institutional investors, they generally tend to have a minimum return threshold that they need to respect. But again, they will most likely take a fairly pragmatic view around the investment opportunities and probably also be prepared to take a somewhat lower return than they otherwise would for their traditional investments. And that's when they're looking about their money. What is it, how are they looking at their impact along that same scale? So all of these investors are looking for very clear impact. And most of the investors that we talk to also want to see measurable impact and want to, as the same for Vokstra, want to see funds that have a very clear focus on demonstrable positive social and or environmental impact and actually have a setup to measure that impact. And that goes hand in hand with also what they're trying to achieve on the financial side. So again, the most successful investment funds and investors tend to have a very focused value proposition, both in terms of impact, a very explicit intent at the outset, but coupled with a very clear investment case and a very clear financial case. And for the people on the left side of that impact who were, we call them capital preservation folks, it means they're also willing to pay for more impact. They're willing to take a concession to return. It's an investment, but they say, I'll pay something for the cost of doing good. Are you seeing more people coming that way? Is that an easier sale? Which is drawing more people and more heart attention and more dollar movement? It's a good question, effectively, because what we see is that effectively on the left-hand side where you have individuals, family offices that can invest, but without the normal fiduciary responsibilities that institutional investors have, they have more flexibility, they can move more quickly and there's clearly a lot of interest from them. In terms of overall dollar amounts, of course institutional investors can put in more, but there is an interesting question around more impact or not, there will be a different kind of impact as we see it along that line of return. So it's quite hard to say that you will have more impact if you are on the left-hand side versus if you are on the right-hand side. I think it comes back to maturity and scalability of the investment opportunities and where you start out. And yeah, that's interesting. And Tel, if you've talked about people who could see the value proposition of Voxstra and those who couldn't, and you said, I'm gonna paraphrase it if you could go further into it. The people who can see this can see two variables at once. They can see risk return in this third dimension of impact. Risk return over here, maybe we're on the right side with just the risk return and the left side with adding this third dimension. Can you talk about more about those people who this just didn't make sense. They invest over here, they give over here, they do public good over here. Can you talk about that? The people don't get it, the people do. Yeah, I mean, because in a way when you talk about the term impact investing here, you need to have sort of two thoughts in your mind at the same time because you want to make impact but you also need and you want to have a financial result. Very often it's all about financial asserts, all about IRR, I mean, when I raise funds for noise zone that the venture business, we go to pension funds and they only at the end of the day they care about IRR and financial first or financial, but that's it in a way. But in this context for Voxstra, we had to find people who could see that it was possible to combine the two in the traditional world. For instance- Collision and combining. I mean, for instance in Sweden. In Sweden, there's been a tradition of there's been the business folks on the one hand and you've had the people who do good on the other hand and it's been sort of thinking that you can combine the two that you can do through a business, that you can do something good and you can measure it and you can have a real impact. It takes time for people to sort of get that through. And yes, we did find people who saw that you could have a two dimensional thinking but particularly among institutional investors because they're not mandated to do so. You could find individuals who personally could be sympathetic and understand it, but they didn't have the mandate. So some institutions, and that's where I hope JP Morgan and others can help us need to, because I think many of those that save the pensions through institutions would be interested in having some of the money in impact related investments. We as pensioners say if a few percentage of our pension savings were to go into these kind of projects, we would like it. And in turn, we have to mandate these institutions to allocate some funds into that. Right, and that obviously gets to the question of scale. So Tony, what are the characteristics of potential investing projects who get the idea and what do you find in common with investors who don't understand the mix of impact and financial return? Yeah, so again, I think it comes back to having the right investment opportunities for the right investors, I think, goes to Taylor's point, is that clearly there is a significant amount of interest from family officers and high net worth for the space impact investments more broadly. And when you look at, for example, capital preservation opportunities, the way we see it is that is kind of one step in from philanthropy. But what we've seen is that investors, private investors, find those investment opportunities very interesting because they see it as a sustainable, efficient, not maybe an alternative, but a compliment to their philanthropic. So it's new money that wasn't going into philanthropy. It's coming from those donors or the donor side? Again, it's a very good question. I think that there might be some additional money coming from private individuals into the impact investment market for capital preservation opportunities. But I think we'll also see a slight shift from giving to investing into impact investments when it comes to the capital preservation opportunities. And I think again, you know, to So new money and a shift of money? New money and a shift of money. I think to Taylor's point, in terms of the institutional investors, there are some today that have a special mandate. And again, us, we have a special mandate to do this, but it requires a special mandate because if not, it is quite a hard thing to do to fit impact investments into a traditional portfolio. And it also requires, in our view, a separate setup when it comes to team resources. So we see that the investors today, institutional investors today that are leading will be those that have a separate, specific mandate to do this. And that generally comes from senior management because they believe it's the right thing to do. It's a new mandate. So how did that change happen within organizations? What are you finding that? How are institutions being able to set up mandates? So this will take time, particularly for institutional investors. It requires, and also for private individuals, it requires a lot of education. It requires a lot of information out to those investors. But for example, when you look at banks, we initially set up the social finance team because we thought it was interesting. The right thing to do started with investing our own capital. But of course, we've seen an increasing demand from clients. So from going to investing our own capital, it's more of a pull from clients. And it's more client-driven today. So... It's investor demand. I mean, Catherine Fulton talks about it as a moral hunger that's driving the market. Does that make sense to you? Yeah, I think that's a good expression. I think there's clearly a shift in mindset, absolutely. And now you've got to go from that shift in mindset to actually practically make it happen. And that's, I guess, where we're hoping to be able to play a role alongside the likes of Oxtra. Right. Moral hunger, I like that expression. That was sort of what I was going to do. Yeah, go ahead. I didn't have the term. I feel for the best. Within business, I mean, there's a lot of people, of course, with the social conscience, but they've worked in business and they haven't worked in the social. And then, as Tel Aviv was saying earlier, that they might have skepticism about traditional philanthropy for various reasons because the mindset of business and investing is often quite different from the mindset of traditional NGOs, right? So when you come to them and you have a product that combines the two, it's sort of, huh, that's what I've been looking for without knowing that I was actually looking for it. So it's like this latent demand that pops suddenly I want an iPad, suddenly I want an impact investment. Yeah, I think that's what it's about. And there are some people, as Tel Aviv say, who don't get it or it takes a lot of education to make them sort of be able to relate to it. But there are also many out there who just get it like that. It's what they were looking for, but they didn't know. Yeah. So that's one of the exciting things about impact investing is that it has the potential to pull people into the social impact arena that otherwise wouldn't be there. And these are often very resourceful people, both in terms of capital and talent, so. And you have a rate of return that is concessionary. You're one of those where it would be capital preservation, but they're willing to take some less to get that impact. So they're not earning as much as they would, but it's lower return and higher risk for those folks because they, but you didn't lead with the investor story. Tell me what it was that they bought and why a concession to return made sense to them. Yeah, I think what made us able to attract that capital was that we put the impact story first and talked to people who were generally interested in being a part of trying out a new way of creating impact. Have they been looking for a new way to create impact? Or did you? Some perhaps had, but not very actively busy people interested, but not really having the time to locate to it. But it was often a suggestion, oh, a new way to create impact. Create impact, do more. Okay, it was that kind of thing. And then, of course, when we were going around with people like Teleth and Kim Wall, our chairman, who saw the Mr. Private Equity in Norway, then it's real. It's there and they have to relate to it, I think in a different way than if somebody was flying in from New York trying to pitch something. Yeah, so what was the question about? Well, so how did they think about their money after what they bought was impact? We put the impact story first, then on top of that, I think, and Tony already mentioned it, you need to have a credible story around financial viability as well. And so within our investment focus... They didn't wanna just have the money walk away. No, no, there need to be some, a lot of substance there, right? So although there's not a lot of track record in investing in small agribusinesses in East Africa, there is some. And we made sure that we had that data, so we could tell people roughly what they could expect. Right. And then we could say... You're going to a place where it wasn't totally a green field, somebody had done something similar to what you're trying to do. Yeah, so we're working quite closely with a fund manager out of Kampala called Pearl Capital Partners. They've been doing this sort of investing for six, seven years, so they were there by far the most experience within this space. Right. You kind of borrowed their track record to say we'll be part of that for a while. Yeah, we said we'll set up a co-investment partnership with these guys, we'll do some of our deals together with them, we'll work closely with them. That will get us up the learning curve quickly. Not least that enabled us to do a lot of due diligence on them so we knew what their track record was and we could say this is roughly what people could expect. And then we were just, I guess, humble enough to say that this is new, it's new to us, it's new to the world in many ways. So we can't really go out there and promise this or that return. Right. Humble Norwegian approach. Some people might say that, yeah. But that was credible enough together with the impact story to get people interested in. Mm-hmm, oh, that's great. And Tony, you've talked about there's the right spectrum and the left spectrum and the right spectrum. There's not a discount to return, but it's larger money and they have fiduciary responsibility. But how are investors in Europe and globally reacting to the concept of to get things going and we might need to give up some return, that this concept of concessionary return, where are they thinking about that and how do they think about that? Yeah, I think in terms of on the investor side, I think that's fairly well accepted in the sense that most of the investors that we deal with even for many of the institutional investors, they seem prepared to take a somewhat discounted return as long as it meets their minimum target threshold. So I think that investors generally, more towards the right hand side are relatively pragmatic, but they manage risk and the minimum return expectations differently from how private individuals look at it. But when we look at the investors direct investors, so we did a research, we did a survey last year together with Jin, the global impact investment investing network, where we looked at over 2,200 private impact investments and we analyzed those along returns, risks, trying to get a view around what are achieved, realized returns and what are expected returns. And what came out of that was, and this was largely related to a debt portfolio of investments, 75% of the investments were debt, is that the investors were primarily, 60% of the investors did not expect to have to take concessionary returns, but the same group of investors, 60% did respond effectively that they would be willing to take concessionary returns in return for more impact. So 60% said they didn't expect to, but 60% said they would. Exactly. Does that mean there are two minds about that? What is it? How does that add up? I think it means that the verdict is still out for the market. I think that we have seen more debt investments that we've seen equity investments to date in this market. And there's no concession to return over time for doing debt and these impacts. And so again, I think for debt, I think the verdict is still out. What we have seen is that in terms of realized returns, they match up fairly closely to more commercial returns, but again, I think it is too early to say to have a definitive view around realized returns. And I think that is even more important around equity investments effectively because we're primarily looking at expected returns. Many of the investments have a 10-year period in terms of equity. So on the equity side, I do think that there is, again, I think there is a general expectations that you will not get fully risk-adjusted returns. But for some of the funds, for example, that we've invested into and that we look at, they have business models that bring scales and that scale is key as well to return. So I think that what we see is that from the left to the right, effectively the maturity and the scalability of those investments, they will drive returns. And then in terms of debt investments, the maturity of debt investments are shorter than equity investments. So again, it is more feasible to get returns that are more aligned with commercial returns and hence effectively the answer from most of the investors that they do not expect to need to take concessionary returns but they would be willing to do so. They don't expect to lose some money, it costs them some money, not lose some money, but lose some part of their returns, lose some percentage points, give some percentage points. Correct. It's still taking action before it's clear. But I think it is one important point to keep in mind here as well is that to a very large extent when we talk about impact investments, to date a lot of it has been microfinance. And so microfinance debt, so it is quite different talking about microfinance versus talking about investments into agriculture. So those investments will have different risk return profiles as well and scalability. I'd just like to make the point that bear in mind that the return for the last 10 years for most investors has been miserable. Market rate, not that bad. I mean, if you put indexed, if you invested on the index in the US of the last 10 years in stock market, you wouldn't have made any money. And these days you get 1.5% to 1% in government bonds. So I think there's a great opportunity now to, because I'm thinking that there's too much money out there investing in limited amount of papers in a way that only a fraction, I mean, a certain percentage of the companies in the world are listed. So there's too much money. I think there's an opportunity to track some of these funds into good projects where they can still get an acceptable return. Yeah, if you get an acceptable return. It doesn't take that much to beat the returns that they've gotten in the stock market for the last 10 years. Exactly. So I see an opportunity. Yeah, the market downturn is an opportunity for impact investing. Because you're not getting in the regular thing. One of the things we also have here is that, and we'll have research later today on the continuing role for giving in this space and the really interesting report by Monitor Institute saying that there's a new wave of or ripple of or something giving to for profits with the example of Husq Power that was now a real darling of impact investing and doing renewable energy from rice waste. But for a year or so, it took gifts. And so there's a continuing role for that. So we're looking at the integration of philanthropy as we go here, as well as some development money. And Voxstra has a million and a half capacity grant from the NOR Fund. And Tony, this is to you. What does subsidies look like when it comes to impact investments, investing equity in order to be viable? If you're not making a little less money and you need some other money at the table, what do those look like? Yeah, I think that there is some, we see technical assistance facilities quite a lot. And we think that there is a real need for those facilities effectively because whether you invest debt or whether you invest equity, what we see is required in terms of the funds and particularly in terms of the underlying investees and companies is quite a lot of capacity building and hand-holding. So the size relative to the fund size is very much in line with what we see in the market. And so more focus on capacity building I think is absolutely, absolutely the right thing to do. And I think it was, tell if you said that there's not so much, or Kevin yourself, there's not so much a question around funding. There is funding today. So what we need to do is effectively to build up the opportunities and to make investable opportunities. And one of the ways of doing that clearly is an efficient technical assistance facility but which sits outside of the fund. And why is that important for it to be outside of the fund? It's because of the return. So I think that the returns but also that it's effectively separately, it's separately managed and it serves two different purposes. Yeah, helping them get up to scale and then investing in the market rate part of that. Yeah. As you're looking at deals, how, and tell if, are you finding deals that make sense for debt? Are you finding deals that make sense for equity? What kind of money it looks like you can deploy in the places where you're trying to target? Well, I think most of the companies we look at they need a bit of both or a combination. And that's also the reason why we've set up the fund to be flexible enough to be able to do both equity and anything in between. And I think that's quite important actually because the traditional private equity model, if you just try to take that blueprint and put it into the context that we're talking about in the developing world and early stage companies in this case, it might get you into some trouble. First of all, of course, is the return side. You won't make as much as? No, because even the companies that go well, the exit markets aren't well developed and the entrepreneurs, well, often it's family businesses and the entrepreneurs aren't looking to cash out. And so you won't be able to realize that upside you would need to get the typical private equity upside. So these companies will often want other types of financing, mezzanine, convertible debt. They would like to make an arrangement where they can buy you out after. So it's not an IPO, the company's not gonna sell, they want to raise enough money somehow from somebody else to get your money out but you got them to where they're viable. Yeah, preferably they'd like to earn enough money to buy us out. So the IPO is not the typical exit. It might happen and we're hoping to, we can do one of those in our portfolio but it's not the typical exit. So yeah, it's important to have capital that can adapt to the realities on the ground and offer what's right for each investment and technical assistance and grant money can be an important part of that proposition. And tell if, when you look at a deal that could become the next Spotify or something like that, you look one way, how do you look at these investments? What's different about the way you evaluate this kind of company and what do you look for and what's different? I mean, I'm still humble when it comes to looking at investments in Rockstreet terms because we've just about started and we have a lot to learn. It might be that we sit here a few years from now and we talk about all the things that we did at workouts. We talk in San Francisco. And so that being said, but one important comment and denominator. I mean, that lots of differences in the sense that the markets, the value chains and so on and risk profiles. I mean, if you invest in something in Africa, I mean, there's a political risk element. There's the risk of climate changes and all these kinds of things. While when you invest in a technology company in Sweden, there are lots of tech risks and market risks but we don't normally look at the political risk, for instance. So I mean, there's a number of differences but one important common denominator thing that we see in companies that the importance of people. I tend to say that when we in Noison, when we invest in a company in a startup, I have like 10 elements that look for but the first five are the people. We invest in people. And then that's number one, two, three, four, five. And then number six is like the market opportunity. Number seven is the technology and so on. Because it doesn't help not having, I mean, if you don't have, the team's never complete, but you need something that are core to invest into someone who sort of lives and breeds with a company and someone who has the soul of the company. And that same goes for the- It's not the pure analytics. It's the sense of the people and what you believe. I mean, you can put anything into spreadsheets and you can make fancy analysis and it looks splendid. And the investments in Noison that's gone terribly wrong are some of those investments where we've been too fascinated by market opportunity and accepted that the team wasn't good enough for that there wasn't- It made sense, but the people didn't make sense. But the same goes for the nonprofit world and for investments they will look at in Voxter terms. And it also go for philanthropy. I mean, a nonprofit project that doesn't sort of embody or don't have the right people or strong people that really, really care about what they're doing. They won't work out. So it's in philanthropy, but it's also in agribusinesses in Africa. It's about people. So that's a very important common denominator. You look for the entrepreneur, you go see the entrepreneur, you see how they work, how people react to them, their thinking, that kind of stuff. Yeah, interesting stuff. Paul, when you go, what do you look for in an entrepreneur? Well, I don't think I have a revolutionary answer to that. It needs to be, an entrepreneur needs to have a lot of drive and a high problem solving capacity, pragmatic problem solving ability. And then of course the ethical fiber is extremely important in doing this because we can't get involved with people who we can't work well in the long term. And, go ahead, I'm sorry. And then it's, of course, it's the entrepreneur and then it's the team around them, of course that's important as well. And they have to be able to have a good dialogue around their strengths and weaknesses and where they should strengthen their team and their processes and their governance and all of that and able to make the company to scale. Yeah. Antonia, I'll give you the last kind of comment. It will open up for just a couple minutes of questions. I think we have, yeah. As you look at this, what is happening that is causing this market to grow, this social capital market to grow and what's needed, what's missing? Yeah, that is a good, it's a good question. So, I think there's been a, there's been a real sort of shift in mindset, but that goes hand in hand with an increased level of information around the markets. And I think that with more information around the market, the market opportunities, how to invest, but also seeing an increasing number of good, solid fund managers out there. And very pleased to see that, you know, Vokstra is now also growing. That would help to grow the market. So, I think on the one hand, we need to really be very focused in terms of helping fund managers build capacity at the investee level and make these investments investable and some of them scalable. Yeah, yeah. And then at the other hand, effectively have information out there around the market and also have concrete investment opportunities for investors to come into. I think that will help build the market over time. I think what's gonna be incredibly important going forward as the market grows is discipline and appropriateness. So, discipline in terms of how capital is deployed and appropriateness in terms of how investors come into which investment opportunities. So, working with the entrepreneurs, making them investable and then information and making it clear. Do we have time for one question? One to two questions if somebody, yeah, Daniel. Maybe just time for one more, yeah. That's good, and better, the clocks are not agreeing. Hi, Daniel Brewer from Resonance. We're a corporate finance and fund management company in the UK. I just wanna ask a question. We'll ask, just say a little bit about focus of the fund and the complexity of the social issue that you're trying to adapt. We found that when we've gone out to raise funds and then we've been a little bit wooly about what the focus might be because we're aware of the complexity of the issue and wanted to have flexibility about that. We found investors found that very difficult to engage with but when I hear your story of, all right, we're gonna invest in this type of agribusiness and it's gonna change poverty and increase there by eight times. You think that's very, very concrete output for a very simplistic single intervention. I just wonder how much you believe in that or how much that was necessary for the investor conversation. All right. So to repeat it, you have a clear metric, eight times the dollars in the companies that you invest in in their supply chain for everyone in, do you believe in that? Is that the question? Well, just to be clear, we're not saying that we will raise incomes by a factor of eight X. We're saying that if we invest, say, $12 million, the returns to local communities over that sort of 10-year lifetime of the fund will be eight X, those $12 million. And that corresponds to an income increase somewhere in the range of 20%, right? So that probably sounds a bit more prudent than eight X income increase. Same number, but one sounds bigger. What is the supersized version of your impact? Well, you just multiply this all together and you get to eight X the investment amount. And it's a bit simplistic because if you wanna solve the big problem of low productivity and small reforming, there's a lot of pieces that need to be put in place. And we can only put in place a few of them. But it is, if you take the example of seeds, if a farmer gets access to improved hybrid-made seed varieties, instead of his farm-saved seed, that alone can double yields. And you can't measure that exactly because there are variability from one year to another in weather and so you can't really know was the yield actually doubled or was it just 1.8 or 2.2? But you can go in there and survey what happened to his yields and then you could subtract a little bit for that uncertainty and you can make a fairly decent estimate of what has happened. And especially if you follow these people over a number of years. So it does make sense and you can... It does make sense. We did a lot of analysis to get to that number and I'd be happy to share and discuss that. Yeah, great. Yeah, another question. Thank you very much for this interesting discussion. My name is Anya Kunig from Turkey. I used to be based in Kenya before. I have a question to Teleth and Paul about the investors, the profile of the investors in your fund. How many of them are Africans? And when you went on your road show, did you explicitly target Africans as investors? And if so, what response did you get back from them? It's a good question and the answer is no, we did not specifically target Africans and not because we didn't want to but we wanted to tap into the network of people where we could release funds from this part of the world that wouldn't otherwise be applied in Africa, in agriculture and also where we could use our names in our contacts and the trust that we have. I think it would be hard for us to be honest to raise funds in Africa because we would be seen as not having enough knowledge on agriculture in Africa. So we would probably be difficult for us to do that but we wouldn't mind having some African investors and we do have trusted local partners because we cannot sit here in Scandinavia and follow up projects with our partners who are locally on the ground. Yeah, it would be a great goal to have African investors but this is where they could raise their fund to have that impact and then you're working with funds that have been investing in Africa for a while that have that street credibility. Well thank you, I want to thank everybody here. I think we're talking about the walking the divide, walking into the space and figuring out who you are as an investor and whether you're an institutional investor or an individual investor and one of the things I think is 60% said they would take a discount and 60% said they wouldn't take it or wouldn't expect it and lack of certainty is not stopping action. Research is catching up with where the moral hunger is leading folks here and I think this is a market that's heart led but it is having the rigor of investing and so I think that's what we're seeing. So I want to thank my participants here, great job. Thank you.