Everything is Impact

Lucas Turner-Owens: Well, thank you all for joining us for another episode of season three of Impacted. Today I'm joined with my co-host, Lucas Turner Owens. And more excitingly, sorry, Lucas, but we're I think what folks are really excited about. ⁓ I know we're both excited for this conversation with our friend Jed Emerson, ⁓ who is a longstanding leader in the impact investing space. But there's so much more to Jed than that. ⁓ but he's someone that I've known for many years, over a decade at this point. And someone that I've looked toward for inspiration, to be provoked and challenged, and to hold, you know, my own myself to account and also the the field. But Jed is, of course, just a an interesting ⁓ person more broadly, and and so we're really excited to have this conversation. And so, Jed, thanks for joining us today. It's my pleasure. Thank you for having me. You know, Jed, I think, you know, because a lot of the folks who ⁓ are are Listeners, they know you as Jed Emerson, impact investing leader. ⁓ but as I as I said, I mean, you're you're you're someone who has done a lot of things. ⁓ you started your career in social work, you were one of the pioneers, and we we now understand a social enterprise. And so I think it'd be really great for for folks to hear a bit of your story and background because it's it's quite unique in terms of the impact investing space, right? And so we'd love to hear a bit about like how you Became the Jed Emerson that people know of as an impact investing pioneer. Well, it's a it's a dangerous question because the older I get, the harder it is to get through that kind of overview in any decent amount of time. I was ⁓ born and raised here in New York City. I started actually in junior high school, super tutor in Spanish Harlem, kind of ran a youth advocacy at community development track ⁓ until my twenties. I was founding director of the Larkin Street Youth Center. In San Francisco working with homeless kids and teen prostitutes and ⁓ did that for four years and then kind of woke up really disillusioned with traditional nonprofits and foundation and government ⁓ stuff. And didn't know what I was gonna do, but just knew I did not want to be in a traditional nonprofit at that point, and so did kind of a lateral exit. ⁓ had my program director become the executive director, and I just kind of went on a walkabout. and as I did that, I I found out that there was this financier who actually had been funding Larkin Street ⁓ anonymously. So I didn't really know who this person was. As I was kind of doing some networking on the other side to try to figure out what I was supposed to do, ⁓ this guy who had been funding us said, you know, you need to go talk with ⁓ with George Roberts. And, you know, I literally was coming straight out of street work in San Francisco. I I knew nothing about Leverage buyouts, private equity, ⁓ really nothing at all. And started having a series of discussions with George Roberts, who oddly enough had kind of reached a similar place ⁓ as as I had, but from obviously a very different path. And he was very kind of frustrated with the fact that he felt that the opportunities he was being presented to do something with his wealth. ⁓ were in many ways, to his mind, almost antithetical to how he had created his wealth and the values, beliefs that he had. So we started a conversation in nineteen eighty-nine regarding what it might look like to use some of his capital to pursue social ⁓ impact and community change. And what does that look like to do that through private lens as opposed to a philanthropic or a or a nonprofit or governmental lens. And so That was really the start of what then became Red F. and ⁓ that is we I ran that fund with George for 11 years, something like that, 11, 12 years, and was the second venture philanthropy fund in the US, the first being Robin Hood Foundation ⁓ in New York City. And so that was really interesting. As a part of that process, we were always looking for how do you take kind of business practice and acumen and apply it toward Community change, community ends. And so in the mid-90s, we convened what I'm pretty sure was the first working group to try to formalize a methodology around social return on investment and really create a a template for, you know, how do you do that? How do you quantify social value? And ⁓ long story short, around that time it was very popular to say people were investing for social returns, whether of a social investor or a foundation person or what have you. And I would say Great, like how do you track the performance of that part of your portfolio? And people would laugh at and say, no, no, no, it's it's a metaphor. We don't actually invest for social return. And ⁓ and I was like, Well, we kind of have a way to look at doing that. And so I ended up getting more and more invitations to speak with and work with for-profit, purpose-driven investors. ⁓ you know, at the time. Again, there was a lot of folks coming out of Silicon Valley. This is all taking place in the Bay Area. And ⁓ These were people who were very comfortable with venture capital, with venture investing, seed investing, and really wanted to ⁓ draw as short a line as possible between their investment of capital and the creation of what we now call impact. And ⁓ so in any event, so I started getting more and more involved in that side of the conversation, in addition to the social enterprise and the philanthropic venture philanthropy work. And again, kind of woke up and realized that I had kind of morphed into this place where I didn't really care if something was a nonprofit or a for-profit or a cooperative or a hybrid or whatever you want to call it. And I didn't really care if something was like a grant or you know, high risk debt or regular market rate debt or pursuing market returns. ⁓ because I'd kind of gone to this place where I I felt that the only thing that really matters in any of this is how we understand the nature of the value that we want to create. course of a life, over a course of ⁓ deploying capital, running an organization, whatever it is. And I think when we have clarity around that question, ⁓ then everything else is kind of almost takes care of itself. Cause when you understand what it is you're actually trying to do, then you can pick from a whole array of different tools and approaches to execution. But if you start simply with the tool and the approach, then you never get anywhere because you're always just kind of chasing your tail in this bifurcated space that asks you to either do good or do well, make an investment or a gift, run a nonprofit or a for profit. ⁓ and I think that's kind of the problem is that we have this bifurcated value frame. And so I ended up trying to do a lot of work with foundations to get them to use their total portfolio. I Published my first piece on that and I think in 2002, ⁓ when I was at ⁓ Stanford Business School at a faculty appointment. and ended up kind of falling into family office work because families don't start with the structure. They start with what are we trying to do with our money? What are how do we manage this money in a way that doesn't kill our kids? How do we like, you know, use this money in a different way? Most of those families. And this is, I'm sure we'll get into this a little bit, but most of those families already have significant wealth. So the issue isn't how do we make more money as the driving kind of frame? The issue is what's the purpose of our capital? How do we, you know, ⁓ how do we manage it in a way that's in alignment with who we are, our values, and what we want to how we want to show up in the world. So in any event, and so that's how I got into the family office stuff, ⁓ which is what I've done for I guess maybe 15 or 20 years, something like that. And just building on that, I mean, one thing that I'm particularly inspired by when thinking about that career that you've had is all those organizations persist and continue to do really impactful work. Red F is ⁓ scaled and ⁓ continuing to strengthen nonprofits and social enterprises across the country. And the whole field of impact investing has really institutionalized in the time that you've been in the field. and it's it's now very much a global conversation. And you're working with clients globally. ⁓ families in Hong Kong, your work's brought you to Singapore, I know. And ⁓ so I guess I'm curious to get your your thoughts on both the institutionalization of the field and the different ways in which folks think about impact investing globally. What those are two related but distinct questions. I think the the thing that's been interesting for me, I the first time that I logged on to Twitter, like back in the early days of Twitter, I was like stunned. Like I was really it was the first time that I really appreciated the breadth ⁓ and reach and diversity of our field, if you will. ⁓ and you would scroll through and there'd be people all over the world, like Doing this work. And I just, it had it, I mean, it kind of clicked. Like I'd given some talks in different places and stuff. And I knew it, but when you really like start scrolling through a Twitter feed and you're getting like hundreds and hundreds of these practitioners all engaging directly, it's really phenomenal, like what has happened ⁓ really around us. The the way I've thought about it before is to say that a lot of what we have done was kind of block parties. So you had folks who were involved in microfinance, you had people doing affordable housing, you had, you know, these different kind of segments and sectors that people were focused on. And what happened, I think, in the probably in the the aughts, I think in the late aughts, you started seeing so many people on the blocks and participating in the block parties, they kind of spilled over to the avenues. And you could like look up and down the avenue, you could see the individual parades, right? There's still distinct kind of language and practices and vision for these different areas, but all of a sudden I think people connect the dots in a whole different way. And ⁓ that was very powerful actually to be a part of that and really see that happen and see people start to say, look, I mean, this is really a conversation around impact and how do we change the world. And again, there are different ways you can get there, but that's basically all capital, all companies have impacts. So the issue isn't are you an impact investor or not? The issue is are you managing your impacts with intentionality? And what does it mean to do that? So I think that's one ⁓ set of observations. Then I'd say globally, what is tricky about trying to respond to that question is that there is just as you can imagine, a diversity of perspectives that are culturally and nationally kind of grounded. That look different. Like this conversation is different when you have it with ⁓ you know asset owners in Singapore versus New York. You you know, it's it's different when you have it with ⁓ community leaders in local kind of villages and provinces versus you know cities and states. It's it's just different based on the enabling environment that a government has put in place that's trying to affirm and advance this work versus a government that's trying to inhibit and ⁓ you know defeat this work. So It's very it's a it's a great conversation. And there is no Asian perspective, there's no Western perspective. It's just like different actors kind of connecting the dots in different ways based on, you know, where you stand depends on where you sit. And so that's kind of, you know, how the game I think is evolving. Really, really well said. And when we were speaking to ⁓ Ben Thornley, who you know well from Tideline, we talked about how the sources and uses of capital also dictates the sort of willingness to take on different types of risk and the types of risks that asset owners want to manage, right? Like if you're representing a an endowment or a pension fund or ⁓ specifically in countries that are most directly impacted by climate change today, their willingness to do climate investing is different than ⁓ you know, some folks in the states who are a little bit more closed off to it. ⁓ but I know Rodney you had a a another question you wanted to jump in with so I'll pass it over you. Yeah, no, this is great. I mean I think, you know, one of the things that I I really appreciate about you, Jed, is When I think about the evolution of the impact investing sector more broadly, and I know there's a lot of diversity within that, obviously. ⁓ the fact that you came into this space is like, you know, coming in from as a social worker, working with homeless individuals, you know, partnering with a private equity like leader to effectively create like a new category. ⁓ when we're talking about social enterprise investing, I know you framed it as venture philanthropy, but with that. Particular focus around how do we create good paying, quality employment that generates wages and economic mobility for individuals that have been most adversely impacted by a lot of systemic issues. so you came into this space like with a different orientation that I think over the years, you know, folks come into the space with more of like sort of a financial perspective, an investing perspective. And so you've seen you've seen it all. ⁓ And more specifically, the thing that I, you know, the question I have for you is as someone who who sort of let's say like came into this work, I'm gonna use the term like more from like a bottoms-up approach, you then have had experiences working with large institutional asset managers. And that's a very to your point, Jed, that's a very different orientation working ⁓ with a large institutional asset manager, even from like a pure business perspective. And so I think both Lucas and I are curious about. Your perspective on what are some of the things from like the business model from like the larger asset platforms where, you know, having kind of seen a lot of different things, you'd like to see like what kind of tweaks you think would be helpful for unlocking more opportunity for impact? I know it's a large question, Jed, ⁓ but you're like one of the few people, you know, that like actually I think has an informed perspective on that. ⁓ well, I mean, let's go back. I think there's a number of issues that come into play when you move from kind of smaller local or regional funds to like these larger ⁓ plays. And you know, let's let's take the issue of risk, for example. I think one of the real challenges is that from a traditional financial investing perspective, there are a certain set of metrics and ways that one thinks about risk. And if something doesn't fit the profile, it's too risky. You put it aside, you know, you don't you don't get engaged with it. And I think what's been interesting is that traditional asset managers can often misprice risk and view risk in ways that actually aren't relevant or germane to a given strategy. And if you think about microfinance, ⁓ in the early days, ⁓ it was kind of a crazy idea. Like who who would give a ⁓ you know a lending group ⁓ of women capital to decide collectively who should get the first loan from this pool and how do you price the risk of that. And I think that that's why you had philanthropy really underwriting microfinance in the early years, followed then by development finance institutions and groups that had a different kind of understanding and assessment of the kind of risk that they were willing to carry. And both of those then made it possible for microfinance institutions to Create track records, to build like portfolios, to be able to kind of show more mainstream ⁓ folks what their their loss rates are, how this works, how does it function? And then you had, I guess it would have been, I want to say in the 80s, maybe the 90s, you had a slew of market rate folks who came in and said, look, I don't know anything about microfinance, but this is debt, and I know how to take that debt. repackage it and I can sell it as fixed notes ⁓ into the first world markets, if you will. And and that's what then kind of fed the scaling of microfinance is you then had the ability to kind of leverage massive pools of capital that were just off limits previous to that. And I think that as a what is it, a a metaphor, an analogy? I mean, I that's true in a number of different areas. And so the role that you know philanthropy has played, the role of governmental funding, the role that different types of impact investing have played ⁓ really has helped catalyze ⁓ the whole space and and helped it I it's gonna sound I don't want to be you know too old man talking out the side of his mouth, but I remember when like, you know, you you could not allocate across a whole portfolio and have diversified asset classes to to deploy to. It it just wasn't there. The product was not there. And today obviously you can do that and more. So I I think it's really been on the one hand great and on the other hand it's been horrible because it's ⁓ it has in some ways ⁓ taken I wouldn't say the worst parts, but it's taken the the parts of traditional financial capitalism that are least affirming of community enterprise ownership and goals, and kind of put that together and said this is this is impact. And so we've ended up, I think, in some cases with people equating kind of large scale funds and you know great financial returns with quote impact investing as opposed to understanding that actually, to my mind at least, again, it's all impact. And it's really a question of the way in nature ⁓ that you bring to managing your capital and your understanding of what it is that you how do you want your money to show up in the world and what does that look like. And then you can kind of deconstruct from there. Yeah. And what direction is it going, right? Is it Are you creating, you know, negative impacts ⁓ for yourself and the folks around you, your grandkids, what have you? Are you producing positive outcomes or or you know, or at least attempting to do that with your capital? You know, one of the things I I think about, and I sit with this question, Jed, is that, you know, you made a comment earlier about when you start working with family offices and and families more specifically in terms of, hey, they've they they've created generational wealth for themselves. And so maybe growing that wealth isn't, you know. Certainly isn't necessarily the primary goal. ⁓ and and then there's this tension, and we see this in the broader like ⁓ asset management industry where you're seeing a lot of consolidation, you know, among registered investment advisors, you know, outsource chief investment officers, OCIOs, wealth management platforms, where like at the end of the day, increasing assets under management is like a primary objective, right, for the business. And there's And there's tension. I for at least for me, Jed Lucas. I feel like there's like tension there, right? Where, you know, it i if you as a if as an asset manager are effectively incentivized to grow ⁓ assets under management, does that not necessarily have some tension with the creating and stewarding more impact? Kind of going to your point, Jed. Like and so I I I I wonder and I I pose that question to both of you. ⁓ obviously, Jed, you've you've been in this work for a long time, but Just curious how how you how you how you think about that. Well, I mean, again, I think that if you if you step back from the conversation and you think in terms of total portfolio, and this is why I like working with families, is that you can you can consider philanthropic near market and market rate ⁓ capital as the you know the broad spectrum of what you're trying to deploy. And then it it creates a framework to really explore kind of like How do you structure best? How do you deploy best? The challenge with institutional capital is that it often then comes with a whole set of considerations that are very traditional and very quote mainstream in terms of the financial returns that they're looking for and the assumptions that they bring to it. And so as a as an asset steward, you need to be able to appreciate the place and function of those actors, that capital, those instruments. But set that ⁓ category within the broader category, the overall kind of capital continuum, and figure out then, well, how much do we want to deploy to this? And part of the thing that I find I I I I go back, I what is Elvis Costello says? I used to be disgusted now I try to be amused, right? So I'm kind of like trying to capture some of that amusement. But there's part of me that listens to some of the discussions that go on in the field and I'm like, wow, like we have fucking learned nothing over three years. Like you still have people who are like, you know, the only thing that matters is impact first capital. And I'm kind of like, well, it depends on what you're trying to do. You know, like it's kind of like maybe you're trying to do a lot of different things, right? And ⁓ and so fine. Like, you know, for folks who have a certain mindset and a certain set of terms and language that resonate with them, God bless you. Go ahead, you know, go out there and do your best. And same for everybody else. It's just kind of like people. I what I used to say at at Alti was that we meet clients where they are, but we don't leave them there. And I think that the the point is you can't just solely have one answer that you're trying to sell and promote ⁓ to the exclusion of other considerations or perspectives or practices. And you have to work to try to help whomever you're targeting, whether an investor, you know, ⁓ a community owner, whatever it is, help them kind of move to whatever the next level might be for them, not for you. And I think that's probably my my biggest takeaway from all these years is I think when I when I was younger, I had an answer that I was trying to beat people over the head with. And I have perspectives and I I have answers that I think are better than other answers. But at the end of the day, that's not what the point is. The point is, can I engage with this individual and help them Understand at a at a deeper level the nature of the work that we're all engaged in and the possibilities that they have to become transformed by the process of transforming the world. And I think this is my one of my ⁓ pet peeves or whatever. I I think a lot about the idea of mutual impact and that what's wrong with the way impact investing has evolved is that it's devolved to a set of like funds and instruments and strategies that are. It's it's all about like what we do to other people. It's like, you know, like how many jobs did you create? How much capital did you move? Did you hit this metric or that benchmark? I mean, whatever it is. And that's all kind of one way going this way. But the real power of the practice, I think, is in the mutuality of the relationship with wealth, with community, with environment, and that we place ourselves in relation to those various factors and not in opposition to. And I think that it's really hard for people. I I I've met a few people in the space who I think are truly stupid, but most people are pretty smart who are drawn to this kind of work. So it's really kind of you need to let their their talent, their energy, their vision, their ideas kind of take center stage for them, not try to fight them on it and try to help them find their way to kind of failing forward. To better solutions and challenges in the next iteration, the next circle, if you will, right? One thing that I've noticed is that ⁓ oftentimes impact investors think about the the counterfactual of their investment. They think about if we were not doing this, what might happen? But they often don't think about, well, if we do do that for a continued period of time, will other stakeholders maybe step back? How will we be impacting the ecosystem that we're a part of ⁓ beyond the moment of this investment? So I guess the question for you, Jed, is ⁓ I I imagine when you're sitting down with with clients or institutions, you may be part of conversations or ⁓ helping them think about what impact they want to drive. Are there ever certain impact areas where you're saying to them, actually, I don't think it makes sense for us to participate on this issue because that's really the province of government or that's the province of a nonprofit or of an NGO? I'm curious your take on that. Well, I think let me turn it the other way and say from a capital perspective, when you're talking about catalytic capital. And philanthropic capital investments, there's there needs to be a big discussion around the difference between kind of crowding in additional capital and displacing or crowding out possible capital. And so that's a it's tricky. And again, there's not a single answer. So I think in each instance, we have to reflect on some kind of foundational questions. And so one of them is. Does our capital encourage other investors to come into a space that they might otherwise not enter? So I think about ⁓ the what is it, the social impact fund that Allianz ⁓ out of Germany launched, I guess three years ago or something, ⁓ where they were able to take a $25 million first loss investment from MacArthur Foundation, and they then were able to leverage. I think over a billion dollars of additional capital on the back of that risk capital that MacArthur put forward. Some people would say, well, wait a minute, why are you using kind of foundation dollars to underwrite kind of profit-seeking, you know, private capital? Other people would say, That's a billion dollars that we've been able to like divert and put to use in this other kind of community directed way. So I think it really, again, depends on this idea that that we have to sit more deeply with questions around the purpose of capital and our relationship with wealth. And that in doing that, you recognize that our answer to the question of the purpose of capital is itself a social construct. And so in the traditional kind of financial terms, the purpose of capital is to seek its highest best use, by which we mean the highest competitive financial return for the lowest risk and lockup kind of frame. You have those three kind of considerations, if you will. And I would say that that's true for impact investing. We just add that additional consideration of impact. So it's, you know, risk, return, liquidity, and impact. And that's the factors that we keep in mind as you kind of go about doing this work. And it's tricky because the answers that an investment committee will have at time zero, if they're any good, will shift over time two, three, four. And so it requires more of a dynamic engagement with wealth and capital and community than you might want to try to think in a static notion. And so again, this is why it's hard to scale because a lot of traditional investors and finance folks they like to put boundaries and parameters around capital. I would say artificial boundaries and parameters around capital, in order to convince themselves that they actually know what they're doing and they can they can assess, measure, and manage. what they understand to be risk. So it's a it's a really interesting place to be in. And again, each of these different strategies that people talk about, whether it's, you know, seed, early growth, whether it's, you know, sustainable ag or oceans or ⁓ gender issues, they all have different answers, each of which can be correct depending on what you're trying to do. Yeah, that's that's really that's really great. And I think just provides like a lot of nuance to the the conversation and Know that like as you s as you shared, Jed, there's so much, or that can be a lot of sort of like, you know, we only can take this approach, we can only take this other approach. ⁓ and there's just a lot of nuance and opportunity and space to do a lot of different things, as you as you put it. ⁓ I shared earlier, ⁓ you know, as as we were opening up this conversation that like I actually do, you know, Jed, you've been a really big inspiration for me. ⁓ and in in l number of ways. Like I I don't think I've even shared this with Lucas, but like, you know, I started my career in journalism, ⁓ and and sort of navigated into where I am today. And so like when I came across like how you entered into all this work, like ⁓ someone who came in with a different kind of perspective that came in it came into it not necessarily as like, you know, the PE guy, right? The Goldman Sachs person, what have you. ⁓ and found throughout my career. You know, there are multiple times where I was like, ⁓ there's something from Jed Emerson that inspired me. Like, like when I was working in economic development, you know, the work of Red F really I incorporated that into my work. I say all that to note that like we all need inspiration, whether it's coming from individuals or ⁓ coming from bodies of work ⁓ that we that we see. And so my question to you, Jed, is like, what you know, what's what inspires you, particularly today? Like what's keeping you like motivated and in the game, right? Like what's inspiring to you right now? Well, I think ⁓ well I've I've just finished a series of posts on ⁓ called Antidote to Autocracy and the basic premise of the series is that capital innovators have the have an aspect, an element of a response, if not solution for the forces that are driving our authoritarian drift, ⁓ not only in the United States but internationally. And part of my I am not a a political scientist, I'm not an economist, I'm not a whole bunch of things. I'm basically a social worker whose career has gone grievously astray. And so I think that ⁓ what my approach to that work was to read a lot and to listen to a lot of podcasts because I kind of realized that, you know, I was so focused on my own work and what was happening, you know, to actors that I was invested in that. I kind of I knew ⁓ broadly speaking, I thought I knew why the Dems lost, but I also realized that okay, wait, this this is like a way bigger piece of shit than any of us really understood. And the fact that they, you know, they brought this individual back in, yet again, I was really horrified by number one, but also I said, Wow, I have really missed something here. Because if you've got that number of people going out and voting for this individual. ⁓ I've clearly missed part of the story here, the narrative. And so I I basically took a lot of time and just stopped. And so I think the inspiration that I'm drawing today is not really from or within impact investing. And in fact, I'm I'm a little, I don't know, ⁓ tired and frustrated by the conversation in impact investing, because I feel like a lot of it is derivative and revisiting and refining and Having yet one more retreat and conference on topics that are fundamentally the same fucking thing that people were talking about 10, 20, 30 years ago. And great, like everybody's on their own path. If that's helpful for folks to come and revisit some of these foundational issues and come up with new terms and perspectives on things that other generations have kind of explored, I think pretty well, fine. ⁓ but I feel like All of this is going on against this massive shift that's taking in ⁓ place globally, and that whatever it is you care about, whatever your theme is or your focus, or whatever, if some individual can come in and with a slash of a pen completely annihilate what you've been working on for 20 or 30 years, I think that's kind of a big problem. I think that's a risk that we do need to take into account more carefully. And no, if you successfully raise your third fund. That doesn't necessarily translate to net positive impact in the world. And it certainly doesn't translate to an opportunity to use capital as a pro-democracy tool, if you will, in response to the fact that ⁓ a lot of people don't feel economic agency. They don't feel they have personal agency over their lives. They feel like they're the victims of these forces they can't control. Those are all really important issues. What however you get there, right? And I think that ⁓ that's part of what for me has been really interesting is spending more time ⁓ rereading Hannah Arendt, ⁓ reading, you know, Timothy Schneider, reading Heather Cox Richardson. I mean, there's a lot of work out there that people don't think of as impact work, but to my mind, this is all about kind of like impact in the world and how we drive that. So in any event, I think that's part of it. And then the last thing I'll say is that. I think I used to I used to view myself kind of kind of in isolation, you know, like I was like a rock in a in a river, hold you know, forcing against the f the flow of the you know what was happening in the world and being, you know, rah rah rah and all that kind of stuff. And I think that part of what has happened to me, especially over the last decade, has been a shift from ⁓ being the rock to being the river. And Looking at how do I connect more deeply with the human experience and journey that has been underway for centuries and centuries and centuries, how do you take that wisdom and knowledge of the human experience and bring it into relevance today so that we can not have to relearn, right? But I mean, every what ⁓ Arnold Tornby said, every generation thinks of itself as the pinnacle of human development. And The irony is that they are, right? But and we are today. You think about technology and everything. It's so incredible, right? But guess what? Like my father's generation had moments of phenomenal technological advancement. My grandmother, you know, saw the introduction of commercial flight, ⁓ saw the transition from, you know, telegraphs to phones in the West and the American West. I mean, it's kind of like Every generation has that experience. And so they've all grappled with a lot of the issues and challenges that we're dealing with today, especially when you talk about authoritarianism. You know, when you talk about the breakdown of, I guess I'd say traditional financial capitalism. You think about the Gilded Age and you think about Jane Addams and the settlement house movement. And I mean, these have all been issues that our predecessors have grappled with that we need to just shut up and learn from and then make better kind of mistakes or have better insights. ⁓ but always approach that from a posture of humility, if you will, to the greatest degree that we can. It's very hard actually. That that really resonates with me because I I began my career in economic policy work like thinking about how to give folks a greater sense of agency, folks who felt you know disconnected from the American dream. And then I I shifted gears in impact investing when we had Trump 1.0 because I felt like, wow, so much of this work can be wiped out with the stroke of a pen. Only to find that in impact investing, I'm benefiting again from policy tailwinds. In this case now, from where I sit, it's it's the climate tech field. And we saw how Trump 2.0 with the rollbacks of the IRA, ⁓ you know, similarly with the stroke of a pen, really impacted the the legacy of of that work. And I also love the broader point you're making, which sounds kind of Taoist to me, around how you tap into the qi and ha tap into sort of the prevailing ⁓ sentiment of of where people are and also into you know previous knowledge. So to that point of you know how we ⁓ think about the predecessors that we have in this work. I'm curious, you know, what legacy you want to have in this field of impact investing. Well, I I would often say to my families, ⁓ legacy is not something you leave, it's something you live. And I think that I've done my best to kind of work with others to collaborate around publishing any number of things over the years that I hope have some kind of a paper trail for you know my own kind of intellectual and emotional and personal development and growth over the decades. and at the end of the day. The way I talk now, how I show up now, the you know, the fact I I try to respond to I don't want to I probably shouldn't say this, but I try to respond to everybody who shoots me an email and says, Hey, like I'm struggling with this or that. What do you think? kind of thing. and I hope that that all I I let me go one more step and say I am sh really genuinely shocked. The number of times that I have met people or people have reached out to me who've said You don't know me, but I read this thing or I saw you speak or something, right? and you have impact as you go along in ways that you just don't really appreciate until you really do have more of a ⁓ you know a longer period of time on this planet. And it it really gives me pause about how I could have been better, more responsive, more supportive, done more. I mean, whatever it is. There's so many things that we all have. choices that we make every day in terms of how we show up. And ⁓ I I think I'm probably better now than I was 20 years ago. ⁓ but we'll see. So anyway, I think the legacy is what I'm trying to do right now in some ways. No, that's that's really beautiful. And I think, you know, it's something that we all need to keep in mind. ⁓ and I I really appreciate Jed, you know, your point on just like the different perspectives that we need to bring to this work. ⁓ I I I think of this as someone as I said, I started off in journalism, you know, my academic training is in culture, anthropology, and political science. I thought that my my career path would be ⁓ you know, getting a PhD in political economy, right? Like that's that's what I thought I was hitting with things. And I say that because ⁓ similar to Lucas, I was like, you know, I want actually have I want to have a more direct kind of impact, right? I want to get my hands dirty, as they say, right? And I think what you've what you've elevated in this conversation is I think really important in terms of we need to have so many different perspectives. We need to have be quite interdisciplinary in our thinking. I think oftentimes, you know, folks will get discouraged in this work because they don't think that they're, you know, fitting alongside ⁓ in terms of the conventional financial kind of mechanisms, right? And infrastructure. When in fact, if anything, what we're all experiencing right now in this moment, in this period of time, is that we've got to be much broader in how we approach these things. And so I really appreciate like sort of your perspective on that, Jed, because it's inspiring. Again, it it's sort of for me, and I know Lucas feels the same way, being able to make sure that other folks who want to participate in this whether we call it impact investing, but this this broader space of making sure that there really is a purpose to capital, that we don't lose sight of that, ⁓ is encouraging. Like people need to hear more of that. And I think of themselves as like, I've gotta be, gotta have had a a career in fixed income or had had to have a career in trading at Goldman Sachs to be able to like enter into this space. And actually, you know, what you're coming to with with other perspectives is really important. Yeah. Well, and the other part to that, that ⁓ is I think equally important is for that all to happen, people like myself and others in my, let's say, generation need to shut the fuck up and step back and let other people step forward and say, okay, you know, like I either agree, I don't agree, or I'm building on this in that you know, in the following ways, or find their own voice, find their own kind of path and set of responses, not answers, because there there aren't really any answers. Just kind of temporary Kind of ways that we navigate. and I think that's really important. And it's one of the reasons why I actually am trying to do fewer kind of podcasts and talks and other things because I just feel like it's not helpful, you know. ⁓ and and for the for the process to turn for us to kind of move forward, we need kind of better, more energized, fresh perspectives and critiques and passions to come forward. And those of us who are 60 plus. Don't have to leave the room necessarily, but should s I to my mind just should not be taking the dominant role in the space and sucking all the oxygen out ⁓ for other folks. Well, that is I really appreciate that, Jed. Well said. And thanks for ⁓ you know, making time for this conversation because it's intergenerational. It's actually that's the thing, is like this is a conversation that's really bringing different perspectives together. ⁓ but really appreciate you, my friend. Thanks for taking the time and most importantly, thank you for sort of laying some pathway for folks like Lucas and I to carry our own out. So much appreciation, my friend. It's way too nice and ⁓ it's certainly my pleasure. ⁓ Chairman Mao said a leader is somebody who sees a parade and runs to stand in front of it. And I think in some ways, you know, I'm just part of a generation of us who kind of came up and are carrying on the work that was going on before we got here and that passing it on for others to carry forward after we're gone. So we'll see. But thank you both very much. Thank you, man. Thank you. The opinions expressed in this program are those of the individuals interviewed and are for general informational purposes only. They are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual or on any specific security. This program is intended solely to provide education about the financial industry in the broader impact investing landscape. To determine which investments may be appropriate for you, consult your financial advisor prior to investing. Any past performance discussed during this program is no guarantee of future results. Please remember that investing involves risk and possible loss of principal capital. Please seek advice from a licensed professional before making any investment decisions. All views expressed by our guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of impacted or its hosts.