 All right, let's get started. Welcome everyone to this lightning bolt on the second day of SoCAP. My name is Jintan Panchal. I am the founder of a international boutique law firm called RPCK. RPCK is focused on helping multiple bottom line investors, entrepreneurs, organizations, execute, conceptualize, and structure a variety of corporate and financing transactions around the world. We have had the opportunity to work with a broad range of folks that come from different philosophical perspectives, some of which you'll hear in today's presentations. Start, you know, kind of on the one hand, kind of an impact first, kind of solving problems perspective. And on the other hand, a kind of financial first making returns perspective and all sorts of things in between. I am very excited about today's conversation. We have Yasmin Seltuplami from the CDC, which is the CDC group, which is the United Kingdom's DFI, the Development Finance Institution. And Yasmin is the deputy chief investment officer. We're also joined by Greg Nietzsche, who is with the KennyArth group, which is a family office focused on impact investing and a wide variety and both have a depth of experience and wide variety of transaction and field building experience. So in today's presentation, we are going to have a couple of TED Talk style presentations followed by a moderated discussion, which I think is going to be a lively one. We're going to kick off with Yasmin's presentation, which is going to be a bit of a look back in terms of what we've experienced and what we've been through in respect of the pandemic and kind of many of the factors leading up to what we've been doing and what some of the leading impact investors in the space have been working on. After Yasmin, we're going to hear from Greg in terms of his perspective on what we as an impact investing community should be looking towards and thinking about as we move forward into the future of our space. So without further ado, I will hand it over to Yasmin. Thank you, Chin Tan. Hi, everyone. It's a real pleasure to be here today. So in thinking about the title of my TED Talk, I was reflecting a lot about what my personal and professional journey was over the months proceeding really in the context of crisis response. And I landed on the title, crisis response when boring can be beautiful. And so that's what we're going to talk about in the next few minutes. I thought I would start with a little personal context and share with you all my favorite toy. This is a backhoe loader. I loved it as a child because this arm looked to me like a little dinosaur arm that could dig into the dirt and build things. And this speaks very much to the way I approach my work even to this day. I'm a builder and everything I've done in my career has been working within institutions. Some would call that an intrapreneurial approach. Working within institutions to think about building a new practice or pushing their capital to work harder for impact. So I started out at J.P. Morgan, moved over to Omidyar Network and now at CDC, working from a mainstream financial institution to a specialized impact investor and now the UK's Development Finance Institution. At CDC, the portfolio that I manage is called the Catalyst Strategies. When I first joined CDC, it was called the Higher Risk Portfolio. And when I came on board two years ago, I said that has to be the first thing that changes around here. I felt very strongly that you don't go into the market saying I'm looking for higher risk. You go into the market saying I'm looking for this kind of impact. And so we rebranded it to the Catalyst Strategies, the idea being it's all about shaping nascent markets. And the kind of simple analogy I give people to describe how Catalyst works relative to our main portfolio of work, the Growth Portfolio is very much investing for impact. CDC has been doing this for over 70 years and every investment we make through the Growth Portfolio or the Catalyst Portfolio has a development impact thesis that is either aligned to inclusion or sustainability or productivity. There are targets and benchmarks and an exposed measurement exercise conducted to ensure impact all along that journey for every investment we make. So how is Catalyst different? So the way I describe it is this. If this is, if we're talking in the context of the Growth Portfolio, one of our deal team leads might go into the market and find this pen. They find this pen, they say, this looks like a nice pen, I like the color, they check it, writes. They say, great, looks like a good pen, they take it to investment committee, they ask the investment committee, do you think we could buy this pen? Investment committee checks that it writes and confirms, yes, you can buy the pen, they put it in the pocket. They might find this pen and they sniff around and they source a cap and they put that together and then they say, great, this is a good pen, I see, can we buy the pen? Yes, okay, good, put it in pocket. In Catalyst, we start with the cap. It doesn't write, but we have a vision that we can construct this and we can bring it to the investment committee and put it in our pocket. And so there is this inherent kind of builder's mentality to the way that we work with catalytic capital at CDC. In terms of our COVID response, that was challenged in a really, I think a really positive way, and this is the story I wanted to share today. So just to give you an example of some of the other things in the Catalyst portfolio today, we created a company from scratch called Met Access. For example, this was established in 2017. Met Access is a company dedicated to changing the landscape of the pharmaceutical manufacturing marketplace to create a market for low-cost affordable products. We also have two strategies dedicated to energy access across the utility value chain from utility-scaled households working on clean energy access across Africa and Asia. When it came to COVID response, it was not the time to build something brand new. But we found the right way to apply the capability that we have with our Catalyst strategies and that's the story I'll talk through right now. But first, before we dive into what happened with our catalytic capital, let me tell you a little bit about what happened across CDC when COVID struck. So we are a firm dedicated for impact. It's inherent in every person who works at CDC. And I think we were all thrown into personal circumstances that were extremely challenging. And first and foremost, we were all supporting each other and our portfolio companies to make sure everyone was safe and sound as much as possible. Right after that was we have an existing portfolio. We have supported these companies to deliver impact, including a lot of job creation ambition. And that suddenly was in serious risk. And so there was a significant effort around how do we preserve that impact and preserve the value that we've created through these companies over time. So, you know, strictly into top gear straight away, we need to preserve value and impact in the portfolio. The next thing that started to happen was I describe it as this popcorn effect of ideas, really interesting opportunistic ideas that were not just rescue funding, but hey, there's a company in our portfolio that creates ventilators in India. There will be demand for ventilators. So we should be supporting this company to grow. Or there's another company in our portfolio, M-Farma in Africa, which is a digital pharmaceutical platform. They could actually distribute COVID vaccines, they could distribute PPE, they could distribute much needed products at the time. And they had the capacity to scale up. So there is this, you know, very immediate need to preserve and rescue and stabilize companies in our portfolio, but there's this additional need to strengthen COVID response through companies that had an opportunity to actually scale up. Another company in our portfolio is BigBasket, an online grocery in India that saw a staggering demand increase. So we organized our COVID response across the preserve pillar, the strengthen pillar, and then there was a third pillar called Rebuild, which was always about thinking about our pipeline long-term. We were never going to step back from the market. We always wanted to step up at a time of need and rebuild signals to, you know, for us it was an important signal to our partners that we are here for you in the long-term. So within that, we designed two pillars of our strengthen response. One was really focused around systemic liquidity. So, you know, expecting capital to seize up and especially pull back from emerging markets, we said we need to be putting new capital at risk into the market. But that's quite a frightening idea when you have no idea what's happening in the world, right? So how do you do that in a way that's prudent? And this is where I came to, huh, you know, my whole career, I have focused on innovation, the new, the interesting. And here is this very tried and tested tool called trade finance that CDC had been using in other places. Simple working capital facilities in partnership with large banks. And we just recognized the value of this as a tool at a time of crisis. So first of all, it lines up with the demand from the customers. You're not asking them to value equity, trying to put equity into a business at a time of crisis is not the easiest thing to do. And you're not leveraging up the company with term debt. You're just meeting working capital needs for especially a short time capital constraint situation. It's a prudent instrument for the risk taker. So for CDC, you're taking very short term risk in smaller pieces across a very diversified portfolio. And finally, for us, we were working with existing partners. We already had relationships with partner banks. And so it was just a matter of scaling up. And in some cases, putting preferential terms in place to say, if you direct capital to these COVID sectors, we can offer you this preferential term. Or if you can direct capital to these priority countries, we can offer you some preferential terms. And with these structures in place, we were able to approve over $500 million of commitments in months where the uncertainty in the markets would have limited much investment at all. So it really taught me that innovation is wonderful and tried and tested can be very powerful. Boring can be beautiful when you need to move fast when you don't have a lot of information to work off of. Having said that, we're also working to build markets with a view towards the future. And so I thought I would also use this small window to talk briefly about one of the new practices we're trying to incorporate into our investment, which is trend spotting, future-proofing the portfolio, working with a practice that is thinking about how the world could change in the next year's decade to think about what we should be preparing today. A year ago, one of my colleagues in our strategy team had published, well, I think published internally, but she had put out content around the risk of pandemics and superbugs. And many of us read that material, right? But if we had stopped and thought a little bit more carefully about what would change in our practice if this came to fruition, maybe we would have been that one step ahead in our COVID response. I'll stop there. I'm excited to hear what Greg has to say. Thank you. Thank you so much, Esmeen. Excellent. And now, Greg, tell us a little bit about what your perspective is on how we should be thinking about looking toward the future of kind of investing in and solving kind of big problems. Sure. Thanks, Chintan. Hey, everybody. Good morning. My name is Greg Nietchen. I'm the director of Kennearth, the family office of Diane Eisenberg. I was thinking about Yasmeen's analogy of the backhoe. I guess if CDC is the sort of institutional builder with the backhoe, we might be the wrecking ball at Kennearth. So I don't have one of my son's little wrecking ball as my prop, but I think some of my remarks might get into that. So it is time for us to admit that much of the impact investing sector is built on a lie. And if not a lie, certainly a half truth. It's time for us to admit that the idea that we can do well by doing good, that we can generate impact while not sacrificing financial returns or perhaps even more farcically that we can generate better than average returns. This idea, this myth has tarnished our sector. If you take one thing away from this talk and one thing only, it is this. If you genuinely want to have an impact on society's most intractable problems, widening economic inequality, racial injustice and catastrophic impact of climate change on vulnerable communities, you need to be prepared to make financial sacrifices. Now, don't get me wrong. The idea of investing more responsibly of pursuing the well-intentioned double bottom line, it's a good thing. The fact that mainstream investors are now paying closer attention to ESG factors that influence the long-term health of their public equity portfolio or focusing on diversity on corporate boards or seeking minority-led fund managers, all of that is positive change. Clean tech, ed tech, biotech, vegan fast food, organic raspberries, tasty, kind of, and sure, generally positive, but none of it makes a meaningful difference in improving the lives of people living in poverty. How do we know this? We tried it. When we started Kenyarth eight years ago, and by we, I mean, Diane, with me supporting her, we gave it a shot. Diane had a guiding North Star that she wanted our capital to practically and demonstrably have an impact on people living in poverty, but we were open-minded, even to those preaching that we could have it all. We built a portfolio with a wide range of impact investing modalities from more conventional public equity and private equity commitments to higher risk, PRI making, and everything in between. And we watched and waited. The conventional impact investing portion of our portfolio, which incidentally included every gold-plated name in the sector from generation to bridges to bane double impact, it did fine financially. In fact, it did better than fine, but there was no way that we could look ourselves in the mirror and claim that these investments were doing the most we could to get capital into vulnerable communities. Similarly, our PRI making was as impactful as it could be delivering pilot loans to early-stage enterprises in developing economies, but it came with significant risks of capital impairment, and we knew that we wanted to build a strategy that could recycle the majority of our money over time. In the end, we found that our most successful investments fell between the ends of this continuum. We found funds and enterprises that had lower risk profiles, but that required lower costs of capital. We saw that we could be impact first in what we did, but we could still make modest returns to continue our strategy in perpetuity. Not only could we make modest returns, but we have demonstrated that we can be catalytic. We are able to incent others into transactions, leveraging our investment. We're able to deliver capital at a cost that allows fund managers and enterprises to stay focused on the most underserved communities without feeling pressure to drift up market. In sum, we can't do well and do good, but we can do okay and do much good. And so this is what we do. We have a team of 12, and we execute 25 to 30 transactions every year. We commit between 30 and $40 million annually. That money goes to funds like global partnerships, non-profit impact investment firm out of Seattle that invests in specialized microfinance institutions and small enterprises globally. They have $3 million junior investment from Kenny Arth alongside $1 million from the Kellogg Foundation and $1 million from global partnerships themselves unlocked $50 million in senior lending capital from the DFC, all of it priced at 2%. Capital at that rate means global partnerships can remain hyper focused on the hardest to serve communities. Similarly, we built a $30 million loan portfolio in the US CDFI market, serving persistent poverty regions, allocating capital to CDFIs like Oesta, serving native communities, Fahi, serving Appalachia and Rock USA that supports residents in manufactured home communities to cooperatize and take ownership of their parks. Now, we didn't do any of this from a sense of moral superiority that less returns are better. We did this because this is the right answer to delivering impact capital to the communities we want to serve. It would have been great and would have allowed us to invest even more if double bottom line investing really worked in these places, but it doesn't. Delivering below market capital was the only way that we could have deep meaningful impact. All that said, I'm not here to take to task those pursuing responsible investment. I don't think it's helpful to label them as impact investors, but these are semantic distinctions. If you're an institutional investor with fiduciary constraints and individual with liquidity needs for you or your kids, by all means carry on. More responsible investment practices are good. They are necessary, but not sufficient to move the needle, particularly around issues of social and financial inequality. There are some people I am here to take to task though. The investors who stand on conference stages using hyperbolic language about challenging systems, but who do very little at their institutions to turn that talk into action. Conveners that ask us to think revolutionary thoughts but demand absolutely nothing from us other than ticket purchases and sponsorship dollars, so-called thought leaders and movement makers that wildly inflate their knowledge and experience and act as gatekeepers only to stoke their own egos. This is all very simple. Impact investors are not brain surgeons or rocket scientists. We do not cure cancer or COVID. We do not educate children or deliver food to the hungry. We are not heroes. We move money and that money has a price. When that price has to be the risk adjusted market rate that commercial investors would expect when you do not go to the places where markets have failed. Sure, you might tiptoe on the edges, funding say mixed use housing projects and gentrifying neighborhoods in the United States or solar home systems for peri-urban consumers in Africa but your money will be too expensive to effectively serve more deeply vulnerable populations. So what is it that I'm asking you to do? I'm just asking you to be honest with your intentions and to pursue strategies that genuinely support those intentions. We invest a lot by family office standards but it's a drop in the bucket in terms of what is needed. Sadly, we find few fellow travelers on this journey. The Lone Brightspots in the past few years have been partnerships with international development institutions like CDC who while certainly bureaucratic have opened their deep pockets to deliver large-scale low-cost capital to challenging places. We've also been really heartened to see select foundations moving faster than ever in response to the COVID crisis. For example, together with the Packard Foundation, the Schmidt Foundation and the Olamina Fund, we were able to pool an $11 million facility providing 0% capital that allowed CDFI partners to make urgent PPP loans to small businesses. We need others to join us in this catalytic impact-first movement and we're willing to help get in touch. We're happy to share everything and anything we're doing. I just wanna conclude by saying that there is only one reason that I get to sit here and spout off like this. And it is not because I myself am a courageous truth-teller fighting for marginalized communities. It is because I have the blessing of working for a courageous truth-teller fighting for marginalized communities. If this industry handed out keynote slots for actual action taken and dollars deployed, Daya and Eisenberg, Kenny Arts founder, would be on stage at every conference. She is not because this industry is not a meritocracy. It is no better than every other industry where status accrues to the friendliest networkers, the most connected, those willing to pay for recognition. If you really want this industry to make a difference in the long run, we need to be better and bolder. We need to be honest where we are having an impact on people's lived experiences and where we aren't. We need to put impact first in impact investing. Only then do we deserve to think we are doing anything different than anyone else. Thank you. Amazing. Amazing. Thank you both. Thank you both. Really interesting and provocative ideas and topics there. So I'm gonna throw out a couple of questions to you guys and then we're gonna open up to the broader conversation. But I think we just heard two very powerful calls to action, right? One is that boring can be beautiful. Look at what's there. Look at what has been done before. Don't try to be the most innovative creative kid on the block and bringing the most sophisticated, complex solutions to these old problems or new problems. And be better and bolder, right? Kind of reexamine who we are, what we're doing and why we're doing it. And then be honest with ourselves and with our community with respect to how we go about doing that. I applaud you both in bringing both of these kind of ideas and calls to action to us as a broader community. So just to kind of kick off a question for you, Yusman. So you mentioned the ability to kind of repurpose and utilize kind of trade finance, for example, to kind of and apply it to a novel situation, novel solution. I love that idea. I think that there are many, many great examples of repurposing tools that have been used in other kind of impact agnostic kind of areas of the sector and applying them to these new challenges. What do you say about the fact that these challenges the fact that these challenges persist speaks to their kind of multilayered, multidimensional and intractable kind of nature, right? That someone who might come to you and say, well, listen, we've been doing these things all along and they haven't worked. That's why the world looks like the way it looks today. And why, how can we assume that a simple kind of approach is going to get us or using what we've kind of used in the past is going to get us to a different outcome in the future that we all seek to achieve. What do you say to that kind of perspective? Yeah, great question. Thank you, Chincon. I'm not saying everything will be fixed by simple things, but I think we can be enamored and seduced by pursuing the new and I think impact investors by their nature have to be people who are champions of something new because it is a new way of thinking about financial capital allocation. I mean, let's think about the, it's not just impact investors, but let's think about some of the changes that we've seen this year, for example, social movements have been happening for decades, right? I mean, protests on the street are not a new thing. Even frustration about police brutality in the context of Black Lives Matter before it was called that, right? Has been present for decades in the United States, but this year was the first time that there were capital allocation decisions made on the back of that movement. So there's a lot of power in heading in a new direction and applying a new mindset to things. I don't want to discount that. I just mean when you're facing forward, you can sometimes forget to look behind you and we need to actually kind of face sideways maybe. Make sure that we have everything in our periphery. A fisheye lens, maybe the good analogy here. And I think in terms of, I mean, you're also calling on this question about change and what happens when it's not arriving. And someone in a webinar a couple of weeks ago asked me about are we at the tipping point of impact investing? And I said, I don't really believe in tipping points anymore. I used to think that change and progress happened in one direction that you always got better, society always got better. And I think the last couple of years have shown me that's not true. And I'm speaking mostly about the political context, but I think, you know, multipolar bifurcations of society, whether it was about politics or now about COVID even people, you know, coming into conflict with each other just about how they practice public health protections or not the arguments that are coming. I mean, these kinds of trends that we're seeing in our society have shown me that progress doesn't always move forward. And so instead of a tipping point, I think about it a little bit like waves crashing on the shore. So you have, you know, the wave comes over and makes the big splash up top, but actually underneath the surface some people are pulling back. Yep. And the question is, is the overall tide coming in or is the overall tide going out? Great. Yeah, I mean, I might play on that analogy because I think some days we feel like we're just, you know, man in a life raft and just sort of paddling around looking for folks to save, I guess, you know, we often do get this question about how do we think about the future and how do we, you know, reimagine the future or restructure the future? And, you know, I often say it's way above our pay grade to sort of figure out how to explain how to fix it that we're just lending money to people who otherwise wouldn't have access to it. And while I agree with all these critiques that, you know, the world is horribly unfair and that access to opportunities unequal, the economy's entirely stacked, you know, we see ourselves in some ways as the emergency room doctors of the situation and a lot of what we're trying to do with some of these simple things that Yasmeen has talked so well about is trying to really stop the bleeding of these sort of societal collisions and injustices. And, you know, I think a lot of what we do is trying to sort of stabilize the situation so that we can make incremental improvements over time. And we do see those incremental improvements, you know, in our work with smallholder farmers, we're seeing increases in income year over year and in our work in the USDFI market, we see, you know, pre-crisis, of course, we see change slowly, but it happens. So I think that, you know, I think there is a lot of beauty in sort of incrementalism and persistence and recognizing that these things don't change in a matter of months or years or sometimes even decades, but that doesn't make the work any less important. Excellent, thank you. Greg, I want to both agree with the sentiment that you've shared, but also push back a little bit. So, you know, I agree, right? We're not, you know, in fact, investors are not the kind of emergency room surgeons kind of in the operating room kind of saving the world. But I think that, you know, you would also probably agree that capital is like oxygen, right? Capital is like gasoline that you pour into an engine, which can be an organization, it can be an enterprise, it can be, you know, it can, you know, it is the means of producing, right? Kind of collecting human effort and producing widgets or energy or services or whatever, right? And that capital is incredibly necessary and I agree with you that the capital has a price. So, two questions for you. One is, is your perspective really more focused on folks who like yourself have the ability to invest at below market returns, right? And I think you recognize, right? So, it's not bad to, you know, invest alongside, you know, kind of, you know, the big private equity funds, et cetera. But is the critique more appropriately focused on folks who actually have the liberty to seek below market returns? Number one. And then number two, what do you say to the argument that concessionary capital, below market applications of capital in developing and nascent markets often has the effect of distorting those markets, right? It has the effect of subsidizing, you know, the least efficient or less efficient participants in the market and preventing, you know, healthy competition or stifling innovation, right? Some of these arguments that you keep out there, you know, I'd love to hear your perspective and your response to those perspectives. Great questions. How much time do I get? So, let me, I'll tackle them both. I guess I'll give the short answers to both. I guess the first one, who is this critique targeted at? It very much is targeted towards those who have the flexibility and the mission to do this work to impact marginalized communities. This is not a message. I'm not sitting here trying to convince pension fund managers and sovereign wealth managers and, you know, people who are in retail investors who are using this money to pay their mortgage or their kids' college bills. That is not, that's not our world at all. And like I said in the talk, I think that the fact that that part of the impact investing universe is moving in a more responsible direction, I think that's great. You know, I can be flippin' about it, mostly just for provocation's sake, but I think it's good and I think all of it should be applauded and there's absolutely nothing. I have no critique of it. It's good, do more of it, right? So my, you know, our critique at Kennearth is much more about those who do have the flexibility and the mandate to do this. That's family offices with more capital than they ever will need. That is foundations that have been set up specifically to address issues of poverty, development institutions that have development in the title of their institution. You know, these are the kinds of people that we wanna try to motivate to do more and try to illuminate why they should be pushing their capital, their capital further. So I guess, short answer is yes, this is a very targeted message to those who can do that. The second question was about does below market capital distort market? So I guess I have two responses. One is where, the places we are, whether we're in developing economies or developed economies, if you talk about persistent poverty regions in the US, there's not a competition for capital. So we're not coming in and replacing what otherwise would be a market rate solution to a particular challenge in a particular place. So the fact that we're providing low-cost capital to lend to small farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and certain communities, we're not distorting that there is a market rate lender coming into that place. We're there because financial institutions are not serving that area. And so I don't think there's a competition for that capital. And that's true whether that's in East Africa or it to be in a Mississippi. I think that thesis holds. And then I'd say the last thing is in many ways, particularly in developing economies, I would say that the capital that it's distorting is Western venture capital that is expecting incredibly fast growth trajectories out of sort of marginalized communities and is really pushing a lot of businesses to grow in ways that can be incredibly irresponsible. If you looked at what happened in sort of the financial inclusion fintech space in Sub-Saharan Africa now, you have a lot of room for real sort of customer harm. And so I think there's a lot to think about in terms of whether that market rate capital can be disordered and hurtful. Yeah, thank you. That's great. I think what we're talking about here is that this is a big and multifaceted challenge, right? And there are kind of the right applications for the right type of capital. And there is a good reason for the right type of capital there is a good reason for kind of concessionary capital in the right instance and where it can be applied, especially when tied to the right kind of motives behind it, right? And I appreciate your kind of call to action. I'm gonna try to string together a few of the comments that we're getting from our audience now. So one of the things, Greg and Yasmin, that you guys both kind of touched upon briefly were opportunities where your institutions have had a chance to work together. And what I really wanna kind of dive deeper into is this idea of being catalytic, right? So the instances in which capital that has different expectations behind it, right? So return seeking capital, impact seeking capital, some blend of the two where they can start to work together. And so I think we can recognize that both of your institutions have very similar kind of impact driven perspectives. So I don't wanna limit your examples to just that instance in which you alluded to that you guys had an opportunity to work together, but I'd love for you guys to share some instances in which you've seen some success stories where you've seen some opportunities where maybe Kenny Arth or kind of the CVC group was able to come in with kind of concessionary capital providing very patient, low cost capital and incubating an opportunity or kind of directing capital to people who really needed it to help them just come up to a level of being able to be kind of competitive and self-sustaining, et cetera. And that you can point to as a good success story where maybe later on in time, more market return seeking investors were able to come in and partner with capital at a later stage or at a time when it was more appropriate. I'd love to hear, I think the audience would love to hear some examples of what you guys think are good and successful applications of some of the things that we're talking about. Great question. I love talking about the examples because that's really what we're here for. So I mean, there's several elements to your question and I would like to use this opportunity to cover off different pieces that tell the story together. So one element is you use the phrase concessionary capital and we like the phrase catalytic capital. They're slightly different in my view because concessionary makes, it's a bit like when I said we called it the higher risk portfolio at first and then realized that we have to reposition it towards what are we trying to achieve. So we're not trying to achieve concessions. You can use concessions, but one of the things that's been really powerful for CDC's practice has been to orient the order of the questions that we ask in the right order. So start with what impact are you trying to have? Second question, what risk does that mean you need to take? And third question, what does that then imply about the returns you should expect? And what that means for us is that we have a range of risk and return profiles within the portfolio. So some of the expected returns for an investment, we have a venture capital strategy, for example. So MFARMA, like I described, that's a co-investment that we've made with a fund manager. That company, I would say, has an average expected return in line with our growth portfolio. It is a venture stage company. It could scale quite quickly. It doesn't need a lot of CAPEX investment to get there. But the uncertainty around that might be wider than maybe some of the direct equity investments that we make in our growth portfolio. So it's less about starting with, are we taking a discount on the price and more about, are we taking more risk or a different kind of risk than we might normally in our portfolio? Having said that, there are times that we do use elements of subsidy or we make concessions in the terms. And I described the preferential terms in our trade finance COVID response investments. And in that case, one of the tools that we use is kind of a hierarchy of preference. So I would put pricing concession at the bottom of the list. Like if you need to keep it in your back pocket, if you really need to go there, you know, it's possible. But the first option I prefer are non-pricing concessions. Like are you gonna offer a longer tenure? Are you gonna take a more subordinated position than you might otherwise? Maybe you'll think differently about the security package. Those are preferred concessions to make for me because they have less of an immediate and kind of explicit restorative pricing effect. So I just wanted to kind of put that out there. And then I think in terms of examples, you asked for example investments. I can talk about, I mentioned Met Access, I could talk about their first volume guarantee. So the way their model works is the idea is to take a high cost, low volume market and make it a low cost, high volume market. So if you're gonna swap, make that swap, you need to offer volume in sales. And the reason why many manufacturers stay in the high margin space is they don't have any site on the demand, right, in the volume of demand. So if you can offer that volume guarantee and say I will underwrite X purchase at Y price, please manufacture the goods and then off you go into the market. So you kind of front run that uncertainty, puts uncertainty in place. And Met Access was working with a company called Hologic to shift the viral load testing machine for HIV, the manufacturing marketplace for that. And with an $18 million guarantee, they changed the way the machine works, the cost of the machine, but also the procurement mechanism around governments purchasing that machine for aid programs so that it moved from a, oh, you need to buy this machine for $100, but you also have to buy the printer cartridge or all the different consumable elements were not priced into the procurement. And so their model was they changed the price of the product and they changed the procurement process, which is part of the market shaping pieces of Met Access. So the catalytic element of our capital is that we created a company that didn't exist before. They are using a technology, the volume guarantee has been tried and tested by the Gates Foundation, but not with a fee. And what we're testing is turning this into a revenue generating model. And it's crossing the domain of public health and private sector. So that's another element that often features in our catalytic capital work is that you kind of have a public good element or a first mover disadvantage, which means you're taking some more costs than you would in a purely commercial investment. Yeah, great. Thank you. Thank you. Greg, would you like to add any perspective? Sure, yeah. I think that was actually a great overview of the different set of tools, which I couldn't agree with more that as you approach each of these situations, considering each of those levers is really important. I think too often we're asked to sort of do all of them together, low pricing subordinate, first-time fund manager. But I think just to cite a few examples, because I think what's interesting about some examples is that oftentimes we are asked to take different positions in those blended capital stacks depending on what that partner might need. So in the talk, I cited Global Partnerships Impact First Development Fund, which is a facility we put together last year with the DFC and OPIC at the time, where $5 million in junior capital from us and the Kellogg Foundation was able to be leveraged up 10 times to bring in $50 million of senior debt from OPIC. Now that example is sort of like the impact leverage unicorn. In some ways, I hesitate to use it because we rarely see such good leverage on our money, but I think that's what we're trying to replicate in other situations. There are other, for example, another fund, Sunfunder, which as a large energy access fund, the situation's reversed. There are some development institutions that are at the bottom of that stack and have offered both first loss and some junior subordinate capital. And we're in there as a senior lender because the gap was to fill that senior lower cost debt tranche. And then the last place, I'll give example of some of that blended leverage is in the US CDFI market where CDFIs are really in need of both equity and secondary capital in order to be able to raise either senior debt or in the case of deposit taking institutions to raise more deposits on top of that money. So good example for us is Hope Credit Union, which works in the Mississippi Delta and has been for decades serving really deeply underserved communities in that region. Their credit union was in need of secondary capital so that they could actually just raise more deposits. From a regulatory perspective, they need that underlying sort of equity-like position. And that was a place where we could go in and write a $3 million secondary loan, 10-year loan at a low interest rate that allowed them to raise deposits on top of it. So I think there's a lot of these blended finance transactions that we get into when we talk about catalytic capital. Very few of them are actually crowding in market rate capital or commercial capital. Most of them are crowding in larger development capital or foundation capital. Right. And do you think that's a function of time or do you think that's a function of something rather going on in space? I think it's a function of the sectors we serve. So I guess earlier you asked sort of who Mike, my critique, my point of view is also very specific to the fact that we work on poverty in marginalized communities, primarily rural communities. If I were speaking about, if I were a pure climate investor worried about how to reduce carbon, I might be saying, boy, how do I move billions and trillions into big renewable energy funds? That's not my patch of the world. So I sort of leave that to somebody else. So my critique and my R&R experience is certainly specific to the issues we work on. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. So we've got about 10 minutes left. You guys can see the comments along the side. Were there any kind of points that you wanted to specifically speak to? Is there, I think we've got some really interesting discussion going on in the comment bar in the chat bar where people are calling out kind of Darren Dodson's work at Aluminum Capital. I don't know if you guys are familiar with that. There's a couple of points about kind of this idea of this Valley of Death, right? Which talks about kind of the sequencing of capital and Greg, I think you gave a good example of coming in with the capital when and where it's needed, right? The Valley of Death question is super interesting to me because I think that it's so prevalent, right? There's so many investors that are looking for kind of deals at the very early stage of the growth of an enterprise. There are lots of investors that are available, private equity, et cetera, at kind of close to exit. And you have this situation where lots of enterprises, social enterprises, just run out of capital. I think the question in there is, is there a role? Is there a call to action for folks? Is there a way to get people to think about kind of entrepreneurship and the kind of social good that these types of enterprises are doing in the world? Is it also something that is deserving? And how do we crack that? I mean, I think there's one aspect which is recognizing, I think back 10 years, there was this, again, back to that progress moves in one direction. There was this thesis that you could be the catalytic investor and then you would pass the baton on. And that might be true if you were the investor in fund one, but I mean, it's just becoming clearer and clearer that you have to stay on the journey longer than you might have thought you needed to when we started in this market. And whether that's with a fund manager or a company, I think there's extending that horizon from the investor perspective is an important element. I think there's a second element which is that there are, I mean, kind of Greg's description as well, Kenny R. and CDC might be active on this side of the spectrum, which is the higher risk, maybe impact first side of the spectrum. And then there's the other side of the spectrum where you can still use catalytic capital, but maybe the intention is not that you're stepping into high risk domain in what the investment is supporting, but rather you're bringing that commercial capital in on top of you. So you kind of have divergent of purpose, divergence of purpose, maybe we call it. One is catalytic capital for the higher risk end of the spectrum and for pioneering new impact feces. And the other is catalytic capital for mobilization. And I think probably it's worth thinking about those as two separate things because they're taking different kinds of risk. And I think on the value of death, if you're able to mobilize that capital, like first there's just catalytic capital investors who are pioneering something new, but they're not gonna jump straight to the other end of the spectrum. I guess that's what I'm saying. You have to take steps along that journey. And there are investors in the middle, but maybe there are too many barbells or it's too barbell today and we need to kind of bring the full spectrum into place. Absolutely, absolutely. So what I'm hearing is that there's a strong need for kind of interconnection and connectivity cooperation, collaboration, right? Not just in applying capital in a blended finance kind of structure in which we've discussed, but also in terms of, and what we're talking about here is applying capital, but obviously it's broader than that, but kind of sequencing, bringing kind of different sources or return seeking expectations together. And I think that also speaks to a couple of the comments that we've had in the bar there, which is this kind of idea of inclusiveness, right? And so, and Greg, I think you touched upon this, I think in a really kind of powerful way in your talk, right? When you effectively take a lot of, many parts of our community to task for, being not that different from other capital markets out there, right? If you're a good networker and you are willing to pay for sponsorships and you're willing to, et cetera, then you have the spotlight shined on you and you have easier access to capital, et cetera, et cetera, right? What do you guys think about this idea of, and the need for being more inclusive, being kind of, not just being more inclusive, but seeking out and privileging different voices that need to be heard, especially from kind of the side and the communities that we're looking to work with, right? A lot of these conferences, I think SoCAP is actually pretty good about this, but a lot of these conferences, we hear the perspective of the impact investor, whether they're, whatever the return seeking kind of, wherever they fall in the return seeking spectrum. One of the things that is often left out of the conversation, I think one of the kind of valid critiques is, is the local perspective, right? Kind of the folks who would be the target of that investment, of that development, of that, et cetera, right? And I just love to kind of hear your perspectives, just personally or kind of what you guys have seen, what you guys are doing in respect of inclusiveness with a broad definition, right? Not just kind of racial and gender and economic kind of inclusiveness, but also from the perspective of the voices that are coming out of the places that we're looking to do this work. Yeah, so I'll jump in on this. I guess the first step in terms of inclusivity is just opening up that conversation and asking and talking to customers and talking to communities that we're trying to serve. So if you're not having those conversations, you're not gonna go anywhere. I mean, one of the things we've done recently, which we're proud of is made a lead investment in spinning off a business called 60 decibels, which spun out of Acumen, that really sort of pioneered this lean data methodology of surveying customers to generate insights that can help social enterprises and other institutions better serve customers. Because I think at the end of the day, the sort of impact we're trying to achieve is improvements in livelihoods in communities. So we've been, we're invested not only in 60 decibels as sort of a corporate entity, but we use their research to inform our lending activity, whether that's overseas or here domestically. They're doing some really interesting work right now with CDFIs and persistent poverty regions generating insights from customers who got PPP loans from CDFIs to really understand where and when these things make a difference. So, strongly agree with the comment that communities have to come first in this dialogue. Yeah, I would support that. And I'm a big fan of the work of 60 decibels as well. We use their work across the investment process. Sometimes it's pre-investment in fact. So we're doing due diligence on what is the customer demand and how would this translate into impact for the customers or the employees or the suppliers or whatever is the universe of beneficiary that we're talking about. Yeah, I think it's a very powerful platform and the aspect of listening is just needs to be much more present than it is today. Perfect. A beautiful, beautiful comment point for us to end up. Thank you both. I wanna congratulate you guys both and thank you for a very interesting and informative discussion today. Thanks so much. Thank you so much.