 So, both of you have done an enormous amount of thinking and leading in being innovative in this space over the last five years. What have you learned? Just a small question, right? Well, you know, I've relearned one thing that I learned over and over again in my life. I used to say that I spent the first 10 years of my career learning all the things you could accomplish through force of will, and I spent the next 10 years of my career discovering all the things you couldn't have accomplished through the force of will. And I do think that, you know, the evolution of this field is going to be the things we intend to do and the things we actually are patient that emerge. I do think that we missed, when I think about what has happened and the historic downturn that occurred, I think the role of government, both as a player and investor and a player and as a regulator, wasn't enough on the minds of the people who were, you know, gestating what has emerged in the last five years. I mean, if you think about the role of the big society capital in the U.K. and the OPEC and USAID in this country and the way they've begun to invest, and I think there is a, there are a lot of regulations that could help to unleash the capital in terms of setting the playing field in the same way that CRA or the New Market Tax Credits did in the community development finance space. And so I think I remember some, you know, kind of ideological battles with some of the groups we gathered at Bellagio to try to even get policy on the map. We got it on the map, but I think it's proven to be, it's going to be one of the most important things in the years ahead. Yeah, so the first thing I learned, which I'm not applying today, is don't go all day without eating and only drinking two big Guiasa Runa teas, which they claim have three times the caffeine of coffee. So I don't know if Tyler or Dan, the founders of Runa here, but if I say anything inappropriate, I'll blame it on them. Here, I'll pour you some water. Just to pick up on Catherine's point, I think I was one of the people that was debating with Catherine, saying impact investing is something we can make work, almost as a workaround from government, that those of us who are impatient or want to see new tools brought to bear because we're impatient about the ability of old solutions to succeed, I don't think we thought enough about government. And in the last year, I've been in a privileged position to really see impact investing from a different place. And that is, as the CEO of the Nonprofit Finance Fund, where we've been making impact investments for 30 years. Currently, we're making loans in health care, education, social services and the arts. And I think even if we're not working directly with government, so much of the money that ultimately funds true social solutions has to come from government because it's really the market failures that we're trying to address. And I think when we think about impact investments, even if we're investing in a for-profit private sector company, I would ask everyone in the audience to think about at what point is your investment even going to work if government doesn't provide either the infrastructure around a supportive policy environment, or at some point the money that's going to pay for the product you're selling. And I think in our example, we'll talk a little about in a second about some work we're doing with social services agencies in New York. But when I think about the people here, there's a lot of examples in India and Africa and elsewhere where it's a private sector solution but ultimately its success and its scale will involve government. So I think that's a good, just to reaffirm Catherine's point on that. So in addition to really focusing on the enabling role of government policy and tax credits and the like, what more do you think is necessary to unlock the potential of this field? What else should we be focusing on before it really is going to be kind of chugging along at full potential? Well, there's so many things and we can figure out what we're going to want to tackle. What I want to mention is the way in which we're learning the skills of how to do this. I just don't think we can underestimate how hard it is to do this. And I think that is a lesson. The moment we're in, which I call this morning a kind of moment of truth, is one in which we now, you know, having generated a lot of excitement, attracted a lot of people, a lot of people in, everyone is slowly discovering, you know, the amount of skill it takes and knowledge which goes to your enabling, your building the knowledge-based duty. And if you take the finance skills and the ability to understand communities and what's going to work on the ground or whether it's different kinds of, say, environmental technology, I think it actually takes years to build the blended skill set. And, you know, so one of the things it's going to take to unlock this is a generation of people like many people in this room who build careers that actually, say, the world doesn't have to be bifurcated in the ways that it has. But this messy space in the middle is we've got to be patient with, it's going to be messy for a while and it's going to take a long time to build the kind of mastery that we all want to see. I'm just picking up on Captain's point about the bifurcated world view. I think a lot of us come to this room because we are frustrated with the idea that what we've been presented with, which is essentially the bifurcated world that says the only way to solve social problems is by giving money away to nonprofits and the only purpose of business to invest. I think, I don't have to make that case in this room, everyone here on some level has rejected that premise. But I worry that in impact investing what we've done is replace one sort of fetish of the tool, the grants, with another fetish of the investment. And so I think one of the most important ways to realize the potential is to reframe the question we asked. It's not where can we make an impact investment, it's how can we solve social problems and how can impact investing be part of that tool? And I think you've always been very good in saying, we're not saying this replaces philanthropy, it's compliments philanthropy, but saying that and really feeling it in just two quick examples. Because I think it's more than semantics, it actually changes what we do. So in our work, we set out to, we had a loan and the Non-Powered Finance Fund in New York City has been lending to social service agencies for years. We took a loan from a foundation that wanted to be an impact investor and said, go out and lend to homeless shelters and soup kitchens because they need some money to bridge government contracts. It turned out that their credit quality was eroding in front of us because there's a crisis going on, it's not in the past tense, it's not financial, it's a deep social crisis and demand has gone up 20% for these agencies and the budget's been caught 100 million this year, 100 million last year. If the question we asked was where do we invest, the answer would have been not here and we would have moved on to find somewhere else to invest. But the question we asked was, how can we preserve a safety net in the city of New York that delivers essential services? And the answer to that question says, impact investing has to be a part because these organizations do need loans, but they also need those loans to be credit enhanced because they're too risky to lend without that and so we brought the city of New York in. And importantly, it also needs grant money that's going to allow us not only to provide financial capital but intellectual capital, human capital, social capital because what these organizations need is not just money to tide them over, they need insight, knowledge and connections to fundamentally change how they work and it's when you put that all together in complete capital and a colleague of mine, Kristin Gianaris, is somewhere here and has really pioneered this idea that impact investing will be its most powerful when it is part of a complete capital solution. We've seen that in our work. We're not the first people who invent this. They're probably some representatives here from the Indian School Finance Company. They didn't set out to lend to affordable private schools in the slums of Hyderabod. They set out to close the education gap in the slums of Hyderabod. A loan fund and setting up a non-bank finance company is one part of the solution. They're also using the foundation to create the standards and the educational curriculum that allow the schools that access the loans to really educate students. I think reorienting the conversation whether you're an entrepreneur in this audience or an investor and realizing that it is messy, as Catherine said, this isn't a silver bullet. It's more complicated but ultimately I think that's how this tool is really going to reach its potential to solve the social problems we care about. I do think that's critical that too much emphasis has been put on this as the next new thing as if it will be this silver bullet and it's part of an overall architecture of structured finance and structured support. Yeah, can I just say something about that? One of the things that worries me the most is that this next cool new thing will be used as an excuse to actually cut government budgets. So to me the task of success is going to be do we attract new capital and do we figure out how to engineer and create solutions that are actually more efficient, more effective and actually use money better. It's both things. And if it's just an excuse to substitute the market for other forces in some kind of ideological battle, I think we have to really watch that. Do you think that's a risk of the momentum around social impact bonds? I think it's one of the things that could happen. And I think that as long as we think hard about this and be intentional and careful and keep our eyes on the prize, we're going to have to be proactive about that because I think that there are a lot of people who are both waiting for impact investing to fail and they're waiting to use it to their own purposes that are not the vision that I know you and Auntie and many of the people in this room, all of us have had for a while. And I think on social impact bonds, it's an interesting... It's a fascinating tool. Probably has the highest ratio of words written to actual deals done at any of us at sea. I'm guilty. Well, I am too. But I think if we ask the question, how can we roll out more social impact bonds? You know, and to your credit, the Rockwell Foundation is one of two American institutions that's actually invested in one of these. The question is, and how do we roll out more as a social impact bonds? It's what is the macro context in which the social impact bond is gaining excitement? And at the Non-Private Finance Fund, in our work with city governments, local governments, state governments, the macro context in which this tool is developing so much excitement is the realization that over the next decade, we are not going to have enough money or the same amount of money we used to have in Western societies, not just in the U.S., to capitalize the solutions in the way we have in the past. That's the macro question. And so whether you love social impact bonds or not, if you, as an impact investor, as an entrepreneur in this space, are not thinking about how your work is going to contribute to the big question, and that is, how are we as a society in the West going to deliver and preserve a decent and just society for more citizens while resources diminish? Is your work answering that question? And I think that's why social impact bonds as a tool are interesting. There are many other interesting ways to answer the question. Ultimately, this movement won't be as relevant as it could be if all we say is, let's find some great companies to back and grow them. We really have to say, what is the macro context in which we work? And I think in the West, it's how do we preserve a decent and just society with shrinking resources? And in growing emerging markets, it's how do we ensure that macroeconomic growth results in an improved life for more people? And I think as long as we understand that our work is located in the answer to that question and other foundations are part of that work and governments are part of that work and mainstream investors, then I think we can truly be relevant. I want to bring in the other element of the ecosystem, the demand side, and the amazing entrepreneurs we see in this room are part of that. Is the field of impact investing and the broader field of innovative financing structures doing all it can to support these entrepreneurs? There was, I think of you, that the markets would organize all of this effectively and it wouldn't need intervention. What do you have about this? This is obviously about keeping this balance in play, right? So you don't want to oversupply capital and you don't want people really needing, being ready and not having it. And this is obvious. I think that there were, in a funny way, a kind of set of arguments and theories of change and there are people who from the investment world who just totally, deeply believe if you build it, if you have the capital, it will solve itself. I think one of the things that the Monitor Ackman Report, Blueprint to Scale, has highlighted is the need for philanthropy, especially in areas and underserved markets, very, very poor people where there's so much basic infrastructure and so much capacity that has to be built, you've got to do more than just think the markets are going to take care of it, right? So we're very proud of that work and I know that Matt Bannick is going to speak to us in a moment about mid-yards' new ideas that they've just been publishing on building up whole sectors. We've obviously got to try to keep this in balance. It can't be either or. And I think, again, if you start from the question of how do we use this tool to address the issues that matter, there are lots of ways into this question of how do we support entrepreneurs to succeed. So the group I mentioned in India, the Indian School Finance Company, they're trying to lend to affordable schools, but they're using grants to help those schools be able to take on lending. We do a lot of work in the U.S. on not just lending to organizations, but helping them understand their finances better. Willie Foote from Root Capital was here earlier. He has a loan fund. He also has a grant-funded arm that helps potential loan fund recipients put their books together so they can understand their business model. So I don't think it's a matter of let's create a silo of investment and then another silo called demand-side grant funding. Let's start from the question of what is it going to take in the case of Willie Foote to massively improve rural incomes in a sustainable way by connecting farmers more reliably to decent markets. When you start with those kinds of questions, I think naturally we all find different ways to support entrepreneurs. In Mexico, the IGNIA Fund, led by visionary entrepreneur Alvaro Rodriguez, he runs a venture capital fund. But if you ask him what he does on a daily basis, he's providing complete capital solutions as most venture capitalists do. He's advising the companies he invests in. He's working with the entrepreneurs, training them. He's making phone calls to people he knows in government to get the telephone lines hooked up that the entrepreneurs need. That's the complete capital solution. I think there are lots of ways to do it. The market won't do it because in our field, we're not going to create the massive outsized financial returns in many of our investments that help VCs 20 miles from here pay for the complete capital solutions they bring to their companies. So if there is a movement to be created or being already created, what things in this movement could go wrong either because those of us who are committed to it misstep in some way or because of externalities? You know, I think, as I said earlier, I said two things, internally and externally. I think internally, I worry that too few conversations we have in rooms like this acknowledge the macroeconomic and political context in which we sit. And so we come up with these great ideas that we can back entrepreneurs or we can provide finance structures for nonprofits. But we don't understand that we are a movement within a macro context. How many of you have had conversations today that you could have had before the economic crisis or conversations that did or did not weigh in to the large political discussions that are happening in the West around the retreat of government or in emerging markets about the natural role of government? So I think what we can control is our ability to connect to those macroeconomic questions more importantly. What I worry most about in the external environment, and again, I would love to hear how this is playing out for people in emerging markets, but for us in the West and certainly in the U.S., leaving aside politics, I'm not going to weigh in on political, you know, I am a C3. It's not about the policies. It's about a narrative in our country that is abandoning a fundamental belief that we have an obligation to take care of each other. And that might sound like a funny thing to talk about on the panel about investing, but at the end of the day, none of this will matter. And frankly, many of our investments won't pay off unless we preserve as a society a sense that we have a minimum obligation to support each other. And just one quick story on that. I mean, you mentioned Giannini in San Francisco. You know, my personal story is, my grandfather was named Udel Levy and he lived in Germany. And he was orphaned as a child and he went to work at a textile factory to feed himself and his younger brother. And he was taken under the wing of the owner of that factory who trained him in the textile business. And then years later gave him startup capital to start his own textile mill in another valley where he wouldn't compete. Just as you said, Giannini was an impact investor. I think that man who set my grandfather up was an impact investor. And his motivation came from a sense in his community that we have an obligation to take care of each other and that we can use our investment capital as one way to manifest that obligation. I think a lot of people in this room I know have similar stories in the past where that sense we had that a community is responsible to take care of each other set us up and set our forebears up to be able to navigate this very difficult world. And my biggest worry externally is that that's eroding. And if we don't participate in the fight against that then I think a lot of what we do could ultimately seem as a distraction from a very depressing story that's going to be told about the next 10 years. Yeah, cancer. Well, I totally agree with the things that that Anthony has just said. Sounds like some other people do too. You know, one of the things I worry about we all got this massive lesson in risk in the last few in recent, you know, going back to in this area to the dot-com bust. I think it's almost like the investment market has kind of forgot about risk for a while. It felt like. And I think now we're too hypersensitive to risk. So I'm worried. I'm worried about the this sort of ironic thing that happens here, which is that I think social entrepreneurs are maybe allowed to fail less than entrepreneurs in a, you know, funded by the VCs and Silicon Valley. In the following sense that, you know, if you fund a whole bunch of things and they fail and you get one big winner, you make a bunch of money and it doesn't matter if 10 years from now, you know, those companies are all gone. I think people are very concerned about whether they're philanthropists putting in grants at an early stage or people investing, you know, everybody in a funny way, everybody just wants to drain all the risk away, right? And I think that's leading us to more incremental things that we're doing. It's leading us, you know, that guy that invested in your grandfather, did he take a risk? You bet he did, right? And sometimes there's, you know, in all the metrics and all the measures, it's nothing against any of that. It's just I'm really sure that it's going to take the, you know, some really big acts of leadership to establish the credibility, people who are willing to put themselves out there. And I think actually that's probably going to have to mostly come from living donors, not from institutional philanthropy. I think what the Rockflower Foundation has done has been great. And Amityar and Gates and some others that are here, but mostly institutional philanthropy is silent on this. And, you know, the leaders who can themselves decide the trade-off they're willing to accept or the risks they're willing to accept and stand by it, whether it's in the entrepreneur or the investor, you know, I just see too many tables where people are wanting to be assured it's really going to work before they're willing to take a step. And that's just not the way we're going to move ahead. I think they're going to be driven by this incredible generation of people who want more, the people who are applauding because they have different values, they want more from this planet, they want more for and from one another. And it gives me an enormous amount of hope to look at it all of you because I know that you will be pushing them into this future. So envision in my last question very quickly, what does that future look like 20 years from now in your crystal ball? Well, in mind, there's this magical way that, that, you know, as Anthony said, we look at the problem and then we figure out what it takes to solve it. And we don't worry, we don't look at the world in the silos that we used to look at them in. And we have this magical thing way of saying there's impact, there's financial return, there's risk and there's risk about both of those things. And there's a way of actually making accessible to investors and to average investors what, you know, what trade offs, you know, what that looks like so that they can actually decide themselves what risk, what is risk adjusted return look like in 20 years? I think it's going to look really different. You know, as long as we're talking about 20 years, what I most want to say is one of my favorite sayings is from Paul Safo who says, never confuse a clear view for a short distance. Never confuse a clear view for a short distance. So even if we have a view for what this is, it's going to take a while to do this. And so we need to be both urgent, have a great deal of urgency and a great deal of patience at the same time. And so, you know, I still remain quite hopeful about the promise of this. And I know that there are ideas that are going to emerge from this room that are going to dazzle us. Answer me? You know, you mentioned, I'm too young to say this, you mentioned young people. Someone, I hope you're in the room, came up to me after an earlier panel today and said, I wrote my thesis on impact investing. You guys have no idea how much that boils us because a lot of us and a lot of people in this room, we're out there fighting a world that doesn't understand what we do. Most of us go home for Thanksgiving if you're American or Canadian. And your families don't understand what you do. That's sort of, it's fun, it's what we have in common, but it's really hard. It's hard enough to make a business work. It's hard enough to make a non-profit work. Try doing it in a world where the system doesn't exist. You know, and then I hear that someone wrote their thesis on impact investing. It's phenomenal to think that something that has been around for many years but hasn't really, five years ago, you could not have written your thesis on impact investing because we didn't have the language of the framework that would enable you to even articulate the idea of social enterprise as something that you would want to take seriously. And so, you know, the social responsible investment movement, the social enterprise movement, all of them have been breaking down this bifurcated worldview and we really stand on those shoulders. But you know, don't stop telling us those things because this is, it's lonely and it's hard. My vision for 20 years is pretty simple. You know, Catherine quoted a philosopher. My favorite philosopher has a new album out called Wrecking Ball and Bruce Springsteen has a song called We Take Care of Our Own. And for me, that's the spirit that allowed Udall Levy to get his startup capital. It's the spirit that had Giannini setting up shop the day of the earthquake. And I really hope that impact investing in this movement will have contributed to a sense 20 years from now that we are taking care of our own and we're using all the tools that I was supposed to do it. In a brief time, we've been instructed and inspired. Thank you so much to both of you.