 Thank you all for coming and I'm going to introduce and have a great conversation with my co-panelist shortly. But before I do, we have a movie here to show you because one of the partners to the Transaction Rock USA couldn't be here today. We want to make sure you got a great sense of the work that they do helping people acquire and preserve wealth. And it's really fantastic. It's a short segment that a PBS station in Colorado did about one of the communities there. So take it away and we'll see you on the other side. Hay familias que vive abuelita, mamá y nietos. Sí, es una comunidad muy bonita. Donde cabe uno, cabe en dos. The Spanish version of the saying, if I eat, we all eat, takes on a very real meaning here. People is very proud to have their gardens. This is the kind of place where neighbors share their food, help take care of each other's kids, truly know one another. There are some residents that have been helping the elders one to keep the backyard clean and to maintain their houses. There's a spirit of collaboration and family that's palpable in mobile home parks, in this place in particular. This is the LMP Longmont, our own community. Encapsulates what it means to work together for a shared goal. There are not a lot of mobile home parks here in this area, actually this is the only one in Longmont that is a resident-owned community. About three years ago, owners of these mobile homes were told the land underneath them was going up for sale. In order to buy the park when the park is on sale, the community needs to get together and it has to be at least 50%, 50 plus 1% who really wanted to buy the, that they had the agreement to buy the park. With help from organizers like Luz Galicia, most residents agreed. They were going to put in an offer. They partnered with Thistle Rock USA, one of the nation's largest nonprofits, helping residents finance and run their own communities. And on February 1st, 2019, residents bought the land for $3.2 million. They have this, that is a bulletin board where they keep informed the residents. LMP became the second resident-owned community with the rock model in the state. They're one of the luckiest ones that they were able to purchase their park. They didn't do it alone. The Longmont City Council approved a $300,000 loan to help residents purchase the community. So that's like our goal this summer is like completely finish the outside. These homeowners say it's all worth it. To move here, it was like a big weight off our shoulders. Like we felt like, oh, we're going to be okay. Sandra Garcia moved in with her husband and two kids after residents took over. Yeah, that's why we found this place because we were looking for something affordable. Sandra lost her job when the pandemic first started. Help came in the form of lowered rents for everyone. And in the time you've been here, how many times have you guys raised your rent? Never. I think they were supposed to lower it. That won't be the first time they lowered the rent. During the pandemic, Sandra says everyone's rent was reduced to help families like hers who were losing jobs. I think like people rarely like move out of here. I don't think they do. Because it's just, you know, like too good. This rent cut not only kept Sandra above water, but it helped them save. They since put up a new fence and created an outdoor oasis. And with like how low like our rent or I guess payment is monthly, it like really helps us a lot with a lot of the like remodeling. Sandra is a part of the board of directors that helps run the community. They have monthly meetings where they talk about the budget, bylaws and enforcing community rules. Thankfully, like us as neighbors, like we don't handle that the management company does, so that's nice. It works out great for Sandra. So she can focus on building up the community she loves so much. Like at least on our end, we try to like keep everything right because we know we're not going to find anything this good. So why lose it? And then start over again, stress out with high rents or high mortgages. Great. Thank you. Sure. So just going to jump into it. My name is Ruben Teg. I work for PGM Real Estate, which is Prudential's third party asset management company. I worked in the impact investments group. And I'm here today with Miliana and Akobi who are going to talk about this transaction that we funded earlier this year to Rock USA. I do have a couple slides about Rock USA. I'm going to put up just quickly so you can get a little bit of a background in the organization. You obviously saw the great work that they did for that community in Colorado. But as soon as these slides are up, you'll get a little bit more of a flavor of it. And so, you know, manufactured housing, for those of you who aren't familiar with it, is in some parts of the country, the predominant type of housing, actually. And in many parts of the country, it's the predominant type of affordable housing that's out there. In some states, you have thousands and thousands of these communities. And for many people, that is the only way that they're able to live anywhere close to where they work. There are 45,600 of these communities nationwide. There are over 22 million Americans who live in manufactured housing communities. The median incomes in these communities are half of the national median. So this is critical affordable housing, really, for working class individuals. I think this is a great slide here. And there was a story that was done in the financial times in which they directly compared a resident-owned community and a community that was owned by an outside investor. And this is the sort of dynamic that started to occur. Many of these manufactured housing communities have for a long time and are still today owned by sort of mom and pop type operators who eventually, for one reason or another, are ready to sell. Because of the way that these communities operate, there are very attractive investment for investors who want stable yield. And the reason for that is that while we talk about manufactured housing using the term trailer parks often, or mobile homes, in fact, the structures that you live in when you live in one of these communities are not themselves actually mobile. They're delivered to the site, they're installed on the site, and there they will remain. Slowly, in many cases, losing their value over time, just like a car would. But if you were ever to pick one up and try to move it someplace else, it probably wouldn't survive the journey. So while you're living there on site, you're also paying rent, and you pay rent on the ground that your box that you live in is on. You own the box, you pay rent on the ground. So while you are a renter, you're not actually able to pick up and move like anyone else. So when the property transfers ownership, the new owner wants to raise rents and say that $600 a month payment you are making becomes $850 a month, you don't have great options. Whereas if you were a renter and you had that kind of thing happen to you, at the very least you would potentially be able to move with all your stuff. Rock USA has sort of stepped into that breach by figuring out how to help the people who live in these communities by the assets that they rely on for their survival, which is the land underneath them. So what they do is two things that are really critical. First is they work with the communities to provide technical assistance, create that homeowner's association that is ultimately going to be the governance body responsible for managing the property once it's been acquired, and then they work on the other side to provide ready financing. You know, when you're out there in the market competing with in many cases some of the world's largest private equity firms, you've got to have your lending tied up and ready to go if you're going to win the deal. And so Rock USA is kind of that critical conduit for capital to all of those communities. And that's where we stepped in. And we at Prudential and many others have seen this model, have been really excited about it, have wanted to support it as part of our broader affordable housing portfolio. So I'm going to talk now to my colleagues and friends here and kind of get their take on this, but this deal came together in large part because of the participation of Robert Wood Johnson. And Kobe, I'd love it if you could talk about, you know, why RWJF was interested in helping Prudential with this deal, sort of what that looked like from your standpoint, and we'll take it from there. Yeah, definitely. Can everyone hear me? Okay, great. Excellent. So just to give you a little bit of context about Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, we are the nation's largest philanthropy that's solely focused on health and health equity. Really, where our mission is to advance a culture of health, working in partnership with others to be able to do that. And really, we're trying to strive towards providing a fair and just opportunity for everyone in the United States really to have the chance to thrive, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much money they have. Just like other foundations, you know, we're advancing our mission basically through grant making. And that really looks at, you know, sort of the 5% of our assets really. You know, we even this last year, we granted out about $750 million. So we have a $13 billion plus endowment. And I think it's really important that we think about how do we leverage the other 95% essentially, right? So this was a really a viable transaction for us to be able to do that. You know, sometimes people think about the other 95% and they're looking at, you know, mission related investments, MRIs, or really trying to invest more actively through their corpus. This allowed for us, since we were really early on in our impact investing journey, really to be able to leverage our balance sheet and really use the tool of guarantees. If you're not familiar with guarantees, it's basically a credit enhancement that is similar to, for example, if you're going to school, parents sometimes, you know, credit enhance their children by providing, you know, guarantees on their student loans, they'll co-sign. And so essentially for us, that was a way for us to be able to advance our mission using that tool. And so we felt that really if we're going to step into really leveraging and using guarantees, we need to figure out how we could also accelerate that. And so what we did was go out and essentially get a credit rating from Moody's and S&P. And so this allowed us really to have additional juice behind the guarantee that we were providing. And so really why would we want to kind of back up ROC USA and help Prudential come into this deal? I think it's really around two sort of core ideas. And really the first is thematically, we know that wealth is a social determinant of health. As I said, we're focused on health. And wealth really ties into that, both from an ownership standpoint in terms of being able to control an asset, but also just from a power building and agency standpoint. And for us, it was really important to be able to support the deal from that standpoint. The other aspect is really we saw a really key opportunity around this from a very structural standpoint. And so we felt that we could, using our enhancement, could really help Prudential really feel comfortable to come into this opportunity. And really our little guarantee really allowed for them to have space to feel comfortable about the loan that they were providing to ROC USA. So I say it's those two issues that really stuck with us and why we felt that this was really a good opportunity for us to lean in in this manner. Great. Thanks, Koby. And I'll come back to something in that in a second. But Miliana, I want to just talk about your role in the deal because Miliana, for those of you who don't know, is not only a business partner of ours, but she's a former Prudential impact investor and knew intimately the challenges that we had with making loans to organizations like ROC, which are smaller, less capitalized than the types of organizations that you might find on an insurance company's balance sheet. And so she played a really critical role in matching what we wanted to do and how we wanted to support ROC USA with what RWJF was bringing to the table, which was this balance sheet guarantee to kind of solve that challenge. So I'd love for you to talk about the role that next wheel consulting in your form played in getting the deal done. Sure. So a couple of things there. So I'm happy to be with a former colleague and a current client and friends of mine. And it really was a year or two of painstaking work at Prudential where we kept getting asked about risk-based capital and everybody wanted investment-grade opportunities if we were going to scale impact investing. And I kept smacking my head at the wall saying, why do I care about this and why am I dealing with this? And luckily it bore fruit. And the fruit was Kimberly Cornette, who is a colleague of a Kobe's and probably known to many of you here. When she joined at RWJF, brought me on as a consultant and said, how do we synthetically use the balance sheet to crowd in more capital for impact? And as it would go, those ideas come to you when you're running or when you can't sleep at 2 in the morning. And I said, huh, here's something that was painstaking for us at Prudential. And I think an important thing to note about the guarantee, and I could spend an hour going through all the technicalities of it, is what was critical about this guarantee is that it wasn't solving for perceived risk by Prudential as a lender. It was really solving for a challenge that ensures having the space, which is if you're going to provide debt to non-rated opportunities, you will have to hold a very high percentage of reserves against those investments. And I will say it's very easy for corporates and others to make $100 or $200 million to impact because that's a rounding error. But if we really want to bring more capital into the space, we have to solve for these institutional constraints. And one workaround and what was really critical and unique about RWJF's balance sheet guarantee is it wasn't just a 20% guarantee. It was a full payment guarantee, and that allowed Prudential to treat this like it was a AAA rated asset and hold much smaller reserves. You can find me over Wine and I'll tell you more about how the deal works. But in short, I think it really was work that I just was naturally doing at Pru with Rubin and honestly a prompt, and a very blue sky prompt, which really got this movement going for the past two and a half years. And although this was a relatively small deal at about $5 million, what was really critical was getting the buy-in of the regulators and getting the right template documents in place so we can take this one deal and grow it much further. Yeah, and I'll just say, you know, without getting too far into the insurance company regulatory weeds, which I don't know, I can't tell if there's people in the audience that would be excited about that or not clap or scream if that's the kind of thing you really want to drill down on or just put it in the Q&A. But in any event, you know, Miliana is right that we do struggle with the fact that we are investing off of the balance sheet of the company. And if you have a life insurance policy with Prudential, you want to know that your life insurance is backed by really good solid assets. And the way you do that with many of those assets is you have them formally credit rated. And so that wrapper around this loan allowed us to feel comfortable with it as Akobi was saying. And structurally, it's a little different because we were able to, we had made a loan to Rock before and that loan had to be kind of directly tied much more closely to the loans that were on their balance sheets so that we knew sort of what our source of repayment was. This loan at their company level was able to be invested as equity down into their lending entity. So for those of you who are structural finance geeks, you understand that what that means is they could then borrow against that. So rather than our money going out the door directly into transactions, our money could bring in additional capital from other lenders to preserve hundreds and hundreds of units of affordable housing, which for us was great. You know, when we talk about getting to scale, there's the dollar scale, but then there's also the housing unit scale, which we really need to hit and hit hard. Akobi, I wanted to ask you, from RWJF's standpoint, were there internal hurdles or challenges to thinking about either the partnership with Peru, like partnering with a private insurance company, or getting that credit rating and kind of the work that was required to kind of put your balance sheet out there for inspection? Yeah, I'm smiling because Ruben knows that, yes. No, there's definitely some. I wouldn't say it was necessarily in terms of working with Peru. What we're trying to do essentially is through the transaction really test to what extent we can help set the criteria or change the criteria that really are in place for insurers to acknowledge what is considered investment grade. Using the guarantee for us, I think there were some operational, as well as just some educational aspects for us to work around. So at first it was just us getting comfortable with that inside the building, educating staff on how this was going to look, educating our finance team, you know, what it was essentially that how the guarantee we would even assess it and evaluate it on an ongoing annual basis. I mean, you know, you have to check this thing every single year and have a consultant look and say, you know, what's the likelihood of this being drawn against? And that makes, you know, a little footnote in your financials, these little things that we weren't used to doing and seeing, but it's really important to really live into how we wanted to use this transaction. So there's that component of the education, of the structural administrative component. And then really I just think the changing the mentality and the mindset of the fact that this was an outlay. I mean, essentially we had belief that Rocky would say was good on their money. They weren't going to default on this. And so we weren't looking at it as an outlay, right? This is just something that we're reserving, we're holding, but it's not to say that this is money going out the door day one, like a typical loan or an equity investment that we made. We had to shift that mindset within the building for us to get to really start to lean into using these tools more readily. Great, and Miliana, like looking at it from your perspective as you were putting the deal together, what did you think of as being kind of the major stumbling blocks between the two parties? Yeah, I mean, I think, listen, this whole idea was hypothesis. We knew enough about the quirks of the securities valuation in the NEIC, sorry, for the technicalities, we knew there was this workaround to have this loan to rock treated like it was a triple A rated asset. There was immense speculative risk, not knowing how Pru would respond or how RWJF would respond, but how the NEIC would respond. And it was a painstaking process to... NEIC is our regulator for those who don't, who aren't, again, insurance company executives here. And we could have put this whole deal together. Pru would put their capital at risk at a lower price because they were pricing this as if it was investment grade versus non-rated. And we could have closed this entire deal, done all the diligence, and the NEIC could come back and say, sorry, we don't buy it. And thankfully they did buy it, and it wasn't an overnight process, but I think that was the piece of the puzzle that was very uncertain, very untested. We had a very strong hypothesis going in because we had folks with that domain expertise between the team at Pru and myself from having been there. And that was a really big win, I think, for all of us. And as I said earlier, we didn't do this deal just to do one deal. We did it to prove, can this work? And ultimately as we go out to crowd in more capital and do more deals, being able to say the NEIC blessed this transaction and our treatment of it is a big win. Yeah, and I would say from our standpoint, as we got into some of those, like, stickier moments, and where we had to have some... As with any good deal, there's moments where you've got to have some crucial conversations about how you're going to get it done. I thought, you know, we were all unified around the purpose of the investment. And that, like, I think got us through some of those times where we all agreed that this was a mission, this was an organization we wanted to support, and we were really committed up front to overcoming some of those structural challenges. Like, to an honest point, we kind of did this in order to take those on and prove those out a little bit. And so when those headaches came, it was not... You know, they were not all foreseeable, but we at least, like, wanted that challenge. So, Kobe, now that we've done the deal, what's next? Like, as RWJF, do you still have a taste for this kind of guarantee provision? Are there, you know, are you looking at other opportunities? What do you think about that balance sheet capital now that you've seen how it could be used? Yeah, we're definitely accepting the charge more, and we really do want to adopt this as a viable tool for us. We think that this is really a great sort of pilot and really a first point for us to test and see how it is that the insurance sector essentially is evaluating what is considered investment grade. And I think really what we want to be able to do is, you know, get to a point where our guarantee essentially is not needed. So how can these transactions on their own merit essentially stand and not have to have an enhancement that's coming from, you know, another sort of larger partner, us being that partner? But how can they, you know, sort of be deemed investable from other asset owners? And so that's the next sort of evolution. Really using these, providing these demonstration points I think will be really critical for that adoption in mindset. And have you gotten any kind of feedback or heard from your peers? Are they interested in how you did this? They are. I think, you know, it's, you know, one of the things that I would, you know, for those who have the ability from other peer foundations, you know, really look at your ability to get rated. This is really a key way to think about how you can, in a more, I would say more passive way, really leverage your balance sheet and also a way for you to really, you know, put more capital to use in a way that sort of there's less deemed risk. So I think we've talked to others around what that looks like. And hopefully, you know, I think the water's fine. Come in, join us, ask us, and we're happy to share best practices, advice, all of those things. Yeah, I mean, from the life insurer's side, I'll say that I've been surprised, really pleasantly surprised by, as people have heard about this transaction, how curious they are and how much they want to talk about it. The insurance industry, I would say, is, has a different kind of relationship to the impact investing space to the banking industry because we're regulated differently. And so we have kind of built this impact investing muscle in a very different way and for different reasons. But there are many other companies, peers to Prudential, that are looking at impact investing, looking at the world and thinking about how they can use their capital to make things different and to improve life for not just their customers, but for, you know, all of the people in society. And this transaction has been one that's been of a lot of interest to them. So, you know, the funny thing is the industry moves at such a glacial pace that like one or two calls a month about a deal is actually like kind of a lot for me. So that's been really, really great to see. And I'm hoping that, you know, next year we see that pipeline kind of really develop. Miliana, you know, is curious, like pulling back a little bit and thinking about your role as a consultant in this transaction. It's not something that we always have in our deals. And it's, you know, I would say it's been a mixed bag sometimes when folks have been involved that way. And so I'm curious what advice or thoughts you have both to others out there who might be either, you know, kind of working in consulting roles or also to your clients or potential clients about what's the best way to use somebody in a role like that. Yeah, it's a great question. And I think in the case of Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, it started when Kimberly Cornette joined two and a half years ago and she was a team of one. So before she hired a Kobe and Zoila Jennings over there. And so I think one very practical use of a consultant is bringing someone on to be part thought partner and honestly just capacity as you're trying to get things off the ground. So one great use case for a consultant is before you have a budget and before you have sign off to build a team. And maybe you want to figure out what your team needs to look like and what expertise you want to bring in. I think that's one very, very good use of a consultant. I think another really great use case is if you are launching or exploring something that is not in your wheelhouse. So I have many clients that are launching their first off balance sheet fund or their first investment fund where they need someone who has an investor hat who knows what the collateral should look like, who knows who's looked at thousands of pitches. So I would say to the extent that you are building something out that is perhaps a pilot or a test where you don't know that it justifies a full-time team member that expertise in-house to or as a consultant to add credibility but also just to make sure you're moving forward in the right way. I think those are two really great cases and a lot of the work that I do for many of my clients. Terrific. And you, you know, have you talked to any clients about this transaction? Has this come up with any of the other folks that you're working with? Oh yeah, this is my pet project. So it is, no, I mean, and I think for those of you who follow Akobi or Kimberly or Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the pull around insurance is a very, very big priority for the foundation. It is something that was already on Kimberly's mind. And to Ruben's point, there's a lot of positive momentum with new insurers entering the impact space. The ACLI, which is a trade association for life insurers, has been going big. There are many, many state commissioners leaning into this type of work. And so this is only one example of many, many different work streams that are in the works at RWJF. So I think we're very excited about this for the reason I mentioned earlier, which is we're not going to move the needle if every corporate makes a $100 million commitment once every 100 years. We really need to make this much more sustainable. To that point, you know, RWJF is based in New Jersey as is prudential. They both historically have been there. They both come from these kind of multi-generational New Jersey corporate relationships. And yet until this deal, we really didn't have much of a history of working together. And I don't know if it was because you guys didn't like us, or... A little bit of that. I live in Columbia, a little bit of Columbia, is the North Jersey Central Jersey thing. I'm not sure, but like, it really was, it was so strange to me to discover that, you know, you were doing all this great work, and it was, you're touching different areas, issue areas from what Pru has historically cared about. cared about. But I was surprised there was not a closer collaborative relationship and I would say through this transaction there is one now that is much more like there's a much more open channel of communication. My understanding is there's going to be some RWJ of folks touring Newark actually. Yeah, there probably is. Yeah, and I think I mean it's really important that we think about, you know, how it is that especially the foundation employee, like how it is that we really work with other actors who are outside of our typical philanthropic space, right? How are we engaging corporates? How are we engaging other investors and really thinking about their constraints, right? Like this, if we're trying to scale anything up, we have to be able to think about who else can come in and what is limiting or preventing them from being able to do that. I feel like this transaction allowed for us to have that room and really to make it comfortable for Peru. Yeah, absolutely. So I want to get to Q&A. So if you've got questions, burning questions of any type, pull out your devices and type them into the chat and I will look them up here on this iPad. Before I do that, I want to just give either of you or both of you each a chance to talk about what your call to action would be for this group. If you wanted to leave them with one message, take it away. Whoever wants to go first. Well, as I said earlier, this is a big initiative with between or within the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. So it's safe to say we are open for business. So I think there is a desire within RWJF to move hundreds of millions of dollars of capital potentially towards this effort. We are seeking folks that can help us with ratings frameworks with pipeline with policy with insurance companies that are eager to invest. So I would say, feel free if this is of interest to you to please ping either a Kobe or me on LinkedIn or email or on the chat. I think we are this is something we're really excited about and really want to continue moving forward with. And I would say it's two things from our standpoint. One, a practical matter is just other foundations try to get rated and use that as a way to really embrace and enhance what you're trying to do. And secondly, I just, as I mentioned, really adopt a mindset about being more collaborative, not only just with other foundations, but really with corporate actors and corporate investors and really thinking about their constraints and how we can work to provide solutions towards that. That's great. All right, I've got a lot of questions here. So I'm going to take it from the top. The first is, could the structure of this deal in your view support assets other than housing? Is there something special about the fact that this was a housing deal or could you see like a guarantee wrap structure on a balance sheet loan going to some other type of entity? So the absolutely yes. So I think in Ruben, you can speak to this too. The unique element of this deal was the full payment guarantee from a rated guarantor. So it didn't matter. I think it does matter that the underlying transaction is debt because it's a credit substitution approach per the NAIC if you really want to get it back to the technical again, but it could have been anything, it could have been for housing, it could have been for small business lending, it could have been a lot of different things. Really what was important to this transaction was the full payment guarantee from a rated guarantor. So effectively it was like giving a loan to Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It was almost a complete look through. I would say when we looked to, so that was what was unique about this transaction, I think how we want to use this guarantee going forward is it doesn't help us to put this guarantee as a band-aid on things. What we're really excited about is where is there a misunderstanding or a misperception of risk where the guarantee can effectively be a bridge to better outcomes. So an example could be more CDFI's having rated securitizations or developing a ratings framework for affordable housing assets. So ideally the way we'd want to use this guarantee is let's get the capital in safe guarded, but go through a process where at the end of the day the guarantee can burn off and we have a better ratings framework going forward for assets that we all know are stable, well performing, and counter cyclical. That's great. I totally agree. I mean, I can see lots of different borrowers that we have that would benefit from this kind of a structure. All right, so here's one that's rising to the top here because it's so spicy. With a 100% guarantee from RWJF's balance sheet, it's essentially risk-free for credentials, says this person. How does RWJF make sure the foundation isn't basically enriching a for-profit insurance company? How did you get comfortable knowing or with the belief that that wasn't what you were effectively doing here? That's a good question. I mean, so it's not necessarily that we're enriching a for-profit. It's more so understanding that but for our capital coming in this way, the transaction would not happen or it wouldn't happen in an equitable frame. So it wouldn't have happened in a way that would have allowed for ROC USA really to be able to afford this. So with the enhancement, it allowed, it lowered the cost of capital to ROC USA. That wouldn't have happened without this wrap around taking place. So we're not looking at it necessarily from the standpoint of enriching or putting credential in sort of a better space. It's more so how do we allow for ROC USA to do what they need to do and do it in a way that allows for them to still have the necessary sort of margins and necessary capacity really to deliver on the mission. And there was just a really natural alignment. I mean, all of us knew each other. We knew what we were coming to the table to do and we were effectively trying to recreate almost like an SBA government product. And I mean, I will say for a $5 million deal that took forever and a day to do, I don't think anyone was being enriched by the deal. And also, I mean, if you know CDFI as well, we're not going to lose or Pru's not going to lose money on this deal. This wasn't about Pru thinking this was highly risky. This was solving for an internal RBC issue. That's right. Which comes down to a cost of capital issue. So risk-free lending doesn't really exist. There is a risk-free rate in the U.S. economy, which is somewhere around what the U.S. government pays to borrow money, which goes up and down over time. And everything, every loan that's on Prudential's balance sheet essentially has to look back at that and say, is this more risky than lending money to the U.S. government? If so, how much more and how much do you charge for that? And in many ways, this helped close the gap between something that is very low risk and really what ROC USA needed to fulfill their mission. Because if you, if we were to price this just on the risk that we saw, the money would be so expensive they wouldn't be able to use. Exactly. They would just be, they would say, no, thank you. Why did I come here to ask? So this is what really closed the gap. The pricing that we gave was fair pricing for the risk that we were taking, and that's what our regulator would agree with. And so then they could feel comfortable signing off and putting it on the balance sheet. I hope that answered the question. It's a great, great question. So next question, you know, how much underwriting and performance history did the rating agency require? Or how much did they rely on the guarantee? And I can kind of take this one. I'll say, you know, really as Miliana was saying that they were kind of looking through to the guarantee and weren't really invested in what was happening at the borrower level, which was great because what we did not want to do is spend months and months having a rating agency pour through the financials of a CDFI that we were already underwriting. That's the beauty of the structure. And that having put that structure in place, it can be more efficient the next time because now you know when you give them the structure they're going to say, oh, okay, that, that makes sense. I'm familiar with that. And if you want to add anything to that or that, you know, okay. Someone asked, why not make the loan directly? You know, why not have RWJF just make this loan if this is money that you wanted to see, you know, end up in the hands of rock? Yeah, making the loan directly, I think two, it doesn't, one thing is that it, there's a direct outlay. As I said before, this allows for us to essentially look at it from a leverage standpoint. So there's not, you know, with the, with the guarantee being issued, we're not actually physically sending money out the door, right? So we could essentially use that capital to make another guarantee or we could leverage it in some other, other way. So that's, that's the first thing. Also, just because of the way that we were trying to structure the deal, we knew that it was really important that this money go through to the CDFI and not directly to rock. So those are two issues as to why we wanted to sort of structure it like that. Yeah, I'll just add, I think everyone in this room could say they know of an organization that's gotten a one percent loan from a philanthropic institution. That's not moving the needle, that's not new. Really, this creative guarantee structure created a template and created a new dynamic, as Ruben said. Ideally, the second deal we did like this would be much easier to get through to the finish line. So I think for us, this wasn't about getting rock USA the cheapest form of capital, it was very important to get them. This was 15 year money, it was injected as equity into the CDFI level where its covenants are tested. So it did provide a lot of value to rock USA, but it also potentially put in motion a new transaction structure that could be very game-changing for insurers coming into the space. And I think that's a critical difference. Yeah, that's really important. I mean, I think it's really about the at the end. We know that our capital alone isn't, and what I'm saying, some saying philanthropy, our capital alone isn't going to solve this. So if we can't entice and then be attractive and allow for others who really have much larger balance sheets than us, then it's not really going to reach the scale that we're trying to see. That's great. Yeah, I don't have anything to add to that. I think that's completely correct and consistent with I think how we would like to see this evolve into the future is that it kind of goes forward with that sort of a mindset. So one question I think is interesting and important I think for us to address is what is RWJF thinking about in terms of the impact assessment on the guarantee or on the loan? You know, what are you going to be looking for a long run in terms of metrics? And I can talk about from proof standpoint as well, you know, when we invest for all of our impact investments, you know, we apply sort of an analysis to the investment. We create impact KPIs and then we track those over time. And so, you know, with with Rock USA, because of what they do, it's pretty straightforward. You can look at the number of communities that they lent to, the amount of money that was lent to those communities, the number of housing units and the affordability level of those housing units, and then you can sort of track capital progress over time on the balance sheet of Rock USA. I don't know whether RWJF has anything else that you're planning to track through this deal. I mean, the other thing that we're also being mindful of and really paying attention to is just the demographics of the actual residents themselves. And we really are trying to get a broader sense. We know Rock USA and sort of how they've operated and who they've sort of supported, but really also having that those numbers and those elements really elevated. So we're really looking at the demographics as well in terms of both from an income standpoint, as well as well as from a racial or ethnic standpoint, who is really supporting. Great. All right. We're almost out of time. There are a ton of great questions here. I'm sorry we didn't get a chance to get to them all. One question I did want to answer though was in the video. You saw Thistle Rock USA and someone asked what that was. Thistle is one of the network of affiliates that Rock works with all over the country. So they're in 21 states and they have an on-the-ground nonprofit partner that they're working with. Thistle does a lot of different things in that community in Colorado, but one of the things they do is provide technical support to resident-owned communities locally. And so there may be an affiliate in the area where you live and I would encourage you to look them up because Rock does a great job screening for and working with super high quality organizations. All right. We are at time. This has been great. Thank you so much. Thank you all for coming. Really appreciate it and enjoy the rest of SoCAP.