Cambridge University's Tilly Franklin: Rethinking Long-Term Investing Inside An 800 Year Old University

(upbeat music) - All right, welcome Daniel and special guest to I think we call this season three. - I was debating that beforehand because season two was like a mini season in some ways, right? What do they call that in the network? Limited series. - Yes, exactly. One question I had though is, do we get a raise? - Do we get a raise? Oh, we do. Is there like a hundred percent raise on top of zero that doesn't really move the needle? - Yeah, my son asked me that this morning and I thought he was pretty funny about it. I was like, I don't know if you multiply zero by a hundred percent what do you get? And he thinks he's really smart, he's 10. He is pretty smart for 10 and he said, undefined as the answer. And so I don't think that qualifies as a raise. And then he turned to me and Tilly, if you're a listener of the show, you know that we love to squeeze in a good dad joke now and again. - We do. - And he turned to me and he said, "Dad, what did the philosophers say to the dude "who invented the number zero?" Tell me. - Thanks for nothing. - Oh. - So I think we're still stuck with nothing. But you know, that's what we deserve because let's be honest, our guests are excellent. We are just the three minutes at the beginning and the end of the show that people zoom through. They're not even listening to this. - No, this is the connective tissue to the content. - Yeah. - Yeah, yeah. - So just as a reminder, if this is your first pod, you should go back and listen to the other ones too. But we are here to talk about innovation. This is an industry. We're talking about asset owners, pension funds and diamonds, increasingly talking about sovereign wealth funds. Daniel, in fact, this morning my inbox is filled with questions if I'm gonna be designing a new sovereign wealth fund. The answer is probably not. - Yeah. - But there's a lot of news about sovereign wealth funds. And innovation is a little scary. In fact, in the last quarter, we lost an entire leadership team at one of the maple eight pension funds for innovation. You know, this is what we're talking about when it comes to the challenges and the concerns that people have when they try to start something new in an asset owner's segment. Well, in this episode, we're gonna go into a topic that is near and dear to my heart, which is the construction of resilient long-term portfolios. I'm not sure people wanna hear net zero portfolios anymore in the current era, at least in the country we're sitting in. But the reality of a net zero portfolio is it is prepared for the future state where we've pulled carbon out of our economy. And it's happening across the world. There are many companies, governments, organizations and yes investors that have set net zero as a policy target. Even Saudi Arabia, the bastion of fossil fuels has plans to be net zero by 2060. And so how do you build a net zero portfolio? Daniel, do you know? Well, I don't, but I bet our guest does. And it occurred to me that given this is ostensibly the start of season three, Ashby, you do know something about this and quite a bit about institutional asset owners and the issues that they face in general. Should we just say who we are real quick? Oh yeah, say it. Yes, so you go. Oh, I go. I go. So I'm Ashby Monk. I run a research center at Stanford University focused on long term investing. Stanford long term investing is how you'll find it on the internet. And I do study how pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and downloads and foundations achieve their goals. And just to be clear, their goals are usually commercial and financial. Now, the benefits they're paying down the road, the kind of promises that they're securing are most certainly social. But when you go inside these organizations and you ask them, what's your job? They'll typically say we need to pay somebody money. And so my work tends to be on how do we help these organizations make money? That's me. Daniel, who are you? I love it. So I, that's our regular listeners now like to describe myself as an adventure capitalist. That's right. Really what I do is I help connect large, sophisticated institutional asset owners with the innovation economy. So I and my colleagues have built a bridge. Metaphorically, not literally. I was once approached after giving a talk by a guy who said, so do you do toll bridges or the bridges that open up for the sailboats? And I was like, no, we just built a metaphorical bridge. Metaphor, yeah. Between asset owners from all over the world, Australia, Europe, the United States, and elsewhere. And we connect them with the leading minds in venture and growth by using GP stakes technology to plug them in in in a during way. And we use that to deliver a flow of information and deals across that bridge in both directions. Daniel, that sounds very deep. And what I love about that is it's a taster for the deep thoughts to come. And I'm sure you're having fun. Let's jump into it because I want to get into it with our guest who is Tilly Franklin, the CEO and chief investment officer of University of Cambridge's UCIM, University of Cambridge Investment Management. It was at one point not too long ago, about 4 billion pounds. Maybe it's something around there still. And we're going to talk about-- Oh, it's bigger. I'm getting the thumbs up. It's bigger. Let's call it 5 billion pounds, maybe. Nope, lower. Tilly, welcome. Thank you for coming on and being willing to talk about something innovative you're working on and not getting hopefully-- Well, thank you so much for having me. Thank you so much. --from a great kind of your research. I didn't realize this was a series three kickoff. So I'm going to-- I know. Well-- You shall see. You're the anchor for season three. This is going to be perfect. People will come back to hear what you have to say. So the format here is pretty simple. We kind of run you through a case study, research style, where we try to unravel a few things. First off, you're here because you've done something fairly innovative, or you've tried to do something different from your peers. In this case, we sort of spoil things by talking already about the net zero portfolio, which is so difficult in an endowment, because usually you rely on external managers. So we'll come into this. So we'll talk about the problem you observe. Then we'll talk about the solution, then pathways, and then outcomes. And I'm particularly interested in the pathways, because we can often spot problems and solutions, but helping organizations get that trigger, that catalyst to actually move. What is that thing that gets you from the problem state to the solve state, or at least on that trajectory? That's in my mind, the magic here. So until we get into it, maybe tell us a little bit about you, your organization. What is the CEO of University of Cambridge Investment Management actually do, and is that similar to a pension CEO? Or do you take on teaching responsibilities? Well, I am teaching a classroom or a bit. For the most part, I don't do that. So hopefully, University of Cambridge needs relatively little introduction. One thing I do want to say about it is I think it's particularly suitable to be on a podcast about long-term investing, since it was founded in the year 1209. So I wonder whether we may be the oldest institution that you've had on the pod. So really long-term. And it's a large university. It's consistently ranked in the global top five teaching and research. We have about 27,000 students, 6,000 faculty, 150 departments. It's a huge contributor to the UK economy. And we have a convention that you're relatively small in town, and as you pointed out, it's about 4.5 billion pounds. But nevertheless, it plays a really important role in distributing income to fund various professorships, scholarships, student shifts departments, and so on. So yeah, for the most part, I think my role is similar to other in-endowments, CIOs, members of the time kind of steering the portfolio, obviously managing our investment organisation and spending a lot of time interacting with our stakeholders as well, which I'm sure will come onto discuss more. And what out of curiosity, what did you study in school when you were not teaching? Thank you for asking that. I studied English literature. That's a reminder, by the way, English literature, that you can become an investor and study just what anything. You can study philosophy. You can study chemistry. You can study-- because there is no professional school of investing in the world. That's right, true. And actually, on our team, we have people who study philosophy and chemistry. And modern languages, engineering, and economics. OK, economics. Maybe that's a bit more. Economics, come on. That's what I did. It's like the class. They're all very great. I was telling Tilly when we first met that I'm often maligned for having been a philosophy graduate student. Why were you doing that, Daniel? And I tell people, actually, that was the most-- forget the economics in the law. The philosophy was the most relevant part, because you just sit around-- I think happens in English seminars, too, talking about things that have no right answers with very smart people and just trying to reach workable conclusions on the basis of consensus, which sounds a lot like a well run investment committee meeting. Dice. So though I will note that both Ashby and I went to Oxford, not Cambridge. So we were debating whether to raise that on the show. We feel no animosity to Cambridge. We hope that that's okay. And in fact, if anything, I feel a bit jealous because I always thought Cambridge was the more important thing. Well, you cannot say that, but thank you. People don't realize that Oxford is a bit of a tough town. And I definitely lived in some of the tougher areas there. You didn't realize that? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Industrial. I had to call 999 a few times just because of, yeah, a burning car out in front of my apartment or a fight going on. In fact, I think Cambridge might exist because the town, gown, relations, and Oxford resulted in some dead students. And then the dawns for Oxford stood up and said, we're going to Cambridge. All right. Tilly. A lot of chatting, but let's jump into your innovation. We're excited to hear it. But before we do it, what was the problem that we're trying to solve today? Well, the sensible problem, the immediate problem that I faced when I took on this role in January 2020 was that there was a very heated, divestment debate going on within the university that it would be going on for some time, specifically about divestment from fossil fuels. And I think almost anybody who's involved with endowment investing would have come across this similar debate over the last decade or so. So I guess that was the ostensible debate. I guess the perhaps deeper debate or deeper problem, which you kindly mentioned in your introduction, was the climate is changing, that creates risks and opportunities. So how are we going to address that? By the time I arrived, the debate had been going on for some time, and it would become very polarised. So we had a group of more environmentally-focused campaigners who, as a view, was that we should prioritise the environment. Above all, and then, of course, we had various other constituencies, including those who very strongly believe that we should prioritise financial returns and offer juice to use responsibility above all, and it's a good point where there's two groups of very different camps. So that was the situation that I faced. Very familiar. I've seen students camping out in hallways at the University of California Endowment in the investment office. And it requires, sitting in the CEO seat as you do, I'm guessing you're the one that actually has to talk to students and manage everybody's expectations and explain what it is an endowment. That's true. Yes, that's true. I mean, we now do a lot more of that on a more programmatic basis. So spending time meeting with student representatives every year and also having what we call a town hall where we present an update on the endowment every year to the entire university. So anybody as welcome to join us as a webinar. People can dial in. In fact, that's happening next week. So I guess there's a challenge, was, you know, how to reconcile these two camps in some way, whilst also kind of furthering the fiduciary responsibility that I have as a fiduciary manager of the fund. I mean, the luxury of an organization that has been around for a thousand years is you can say with a straight face that we need to be considering these issues that could prevent us from meeting our obligations 75 years from now. And so that helps you just by the nature of that time horizon to bring those two camps closer together than if you were, say, a hedge fund operating on a, you know, one month time horizons. Very difficult to point to the immediate costs of climate change. Also when you were doing this initially in 2020, I'm guessing it wasn't as palpables it feels right now. I've, I've like, feel like in the last quarter, I've had more conversations about climate insurance than I've ever had in my life because of what you're seeing in fires in California, hurricanes and Florida. And basically insurance companies just saying, we're not going to do it anymore. Anyway, that's me rambling again. What did you do? So, so we've talked a little bit about the problem. Let's talk about the solution and then we'll get into the pathways. Sure. I have to say it felt pretty palpable even at that time. I guess it's only become more palpable since, but you know, it came with just also a leading center of climate science is a lot of climate science research. It goes on in different departments like built environment, you know, aviation technology, land management. And so it was already, there was already a lot of a lot of evidence. It was obviously only accumulated more subsequently. But I guess, you know, first of all, I think what did we do? The first thing to do, I think in any situation like that is to go on a giant of listening campaigns, just go literally talking to all the constituencies. And I think sometimes when people have gotten themselves into very different camps, you know, if somebody's in campaign and somebody's in campaign, the answer isn't necessarily to half a day and half of B. That may not be possible. The answer could be something a bit different. And so I guess what I was thinking about is what are we really trying to achieve here? You know, what can we all agree upon? I think we could all agree upon the fact that we wanted the universities, we wanted the universities investment portfolio to be consistent with its academic focus on climate science. We wanted the endowment to have a positive impact whilst also fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities are not sacrificing financial returns. So basically we wanted to care both about the environment and about our financial returns, an equal measure, I would say, equal, but you wanted to care about both of those things passionately. And so in a sense, you know, for me, the key insight was to shift the focus away from investment per se on to decarbonisation. Yeah. But I think you alluded to this really compellingly in your intro, which is, you know, I think it's pretty undisputed that there is the climate emergency, the climate is changing. So if we assume that at some point over the coming decades, whether it's in the next decade, two decades or three decades, but at some point, giving into society is going to execute upon an energy transition, we want to be invested in a way that's consistent with that clean energy future rather than being kind of locked into the past as it were. And so, and I think, you know, then to then decarbonisation was a goal. Decarbonisation doesn't just help our portfolio can also help the world by really reducing the carbon emissions profile of the underlying assets in our portfolio. And why is that also good for our fiduciary responsibility? I think the way that I think about that is, if you think about greenhouse gas emissions as an increasingly scarce resource, right? The world can immediately absorb so many more of these emissions before the climate changes irreversibly may already have done. In fact, it's a bit like thinking about any, any decently run companies, you know, think about how do they use capital expenditure? How do they use their labour force efficiently? So they should also be thinking about how can they do whatever they do in a mission's efficient way. And so that's really how we think about it in terms of how do we measure the emissions that generate from the underlying assets in our portfolio? And then how can we influence the fund manager partners that we work with to use sort of whatever governance rights that they have to affect? Over time, obviously it's not going to happen overnight. It's going to be a gradual reduction in those emissions. And so that's a very high level approach, which is obviously fraught with complexity at every stage. No, but I think the efficient use of the carbon inputs is a proxy for management quality, governance quality of the underlying organizations. And I think some of us as researchers have actually tried to go beyond that and say, is they're like a green factor where like being green does that actually drive more outperformance through different mechanisms, like the lower your environmental footprint in an environmental catastrophe, your ability to absorb and rebound from a crisis is better. So that's kind of outside of your management quality. It was a risk, that's a risk reduction factor I guess. Yeah, exactly. That's a risk reduction. But also what I would say, it's like a resilience increase because resilience, you can still have a big drawdown if you recover quickly. Your risk might actually look higher, but your recovery is faster. You know what I mean? We call that a submergence. I'm not up with the latest lingo like Ashby, but I wrote a book on this topic in 2016. Oh, I'm just going to drop a little knowledge on you, Ashby, about when, which I argued that it was a false dichotomy to think about doing good for the planet and making money as opposed. But I'm guessing, Tilly, that on your listening tour, you know, facts are important, but that particular set of facts, the notion that green resiliency or getting to net zero also being sort of strictly speaking and definitively aligned with risk adjusted outperformance is just not widely accepted enough among smart people to serve as the basis for a common M.O. You have to, it's not, it's hardly, it is not as simple as making that argument. Am I right in saying that? I didn't know, actually, I didn't. Funnily enough, I used exactly that phrase, the false dichotomy. And that was what I was communicating. We were going to get beyond this dichotomy and think about the fact that environmental and financial goals are aligned. And I think it makes so much sense to think that companies that are more efficient, that you're able to produce whatever they do with less emissions per unit of output, it's very likely that they're going to be worth more in the next video. run, the companies are inefficient. So I think that did resonate. And has that been a sufficient argument? It resonated and it got you over the line. It did. Although we sort of used the net zero, you know, as a sort of higher level, I guess, communications tool, net zero portfolio, which I should be also reference. We did also agree to gradually phase out our exposure to fossil fuels as well over time. So we had 10 years. So we announced a new SSAWA mess in the strategy in 2020. And we said we would have, we would get out of conventional energy exposure substantially by 2030. But I think for me, the way that I square the circle on that is if our goal is decarbonisation, you can decarbonise anything except the ultimate source of carbon. So I think about it in that regard as, you know, getting out of fossil fuels is sort of consistent with these decarbonisation objectives. So you're an endowment. You're running an endowment style portfolio, which means you're a liquid and you're reliant on external managers and you're heavy inequity risk. And the managers that you're backing probably are high-flying great managers that might not need your money. In the case of other endowments, there's always a question for CEOs wanting a job. How are you going to get access is the question. So here you are. You're in this seat. You're being told you need to build a sustainable portfolio. But you actually don't have the reins for a lot of the portfolio. You are actually then having to go to your managers or change managers. So talk us through that part of this problem-slash solution and how you came up with a strategy. Yeah. Well, I think first of all, the key is this framing. Our environmental goal is being about long-term sustainability and being consistent with generating the best financial returns. That's key. We definitely don't want to need favours. We don't want managers to do things for us that they don't want to do. But I think for the most part, managers are really interested in how to have long-term sustainable portfolios. And it helps us that many of our managers are very long-term oriented. That's sort of consistent with our philosophy as well. So perhaps if you were doing sort of a very short-term high-frequency trading, it would be more difficult thinking that way. And of course, one of the most difficult asset classes to apply this approach to is the hedge funds if they are sort of short-term holders of securities and we could come back to that later. But the most part, if you're investing in equities, in private equity, even if you're maybe a credit investor that sometimes has various negative retails through your credit holdings, you have some influence over the company. You're going to be invested in these companies for some period of time. Therefore, the most part, our managers were interested in the companies being long-term sustainable economic actors. So that's the way that we communicate our approach. And then I think really critical to this was you don't just want to be a thorn in their side kind of bang on about something that we want to do for us. We also want to offer something to them. So one of the other great benefits of my listening tour was that I got to know a lot more about the university that I work for. As I mentioned, it's very large. It has 150 different departments. So it's hard to me outside into sort of know all about all of what the CEO wanted at the university. I was very much guided in this tour by one of my colleagues, the woman called Emily Chukborough, who runs an initiative called Cambridge Zero, which tries to bring together the climate science or climate mitigations or projects that are going on all over the university in different departments. And through her, I discovered the great work that's being done at one of our institutions, which is called the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. And I'll call it CISL from now on, because Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership is quite a lot of words to say. So CISL, yes. So CISL. CISL, got it. Is actually a postgraduate, overly education department. They run postgraduate courses in sustainability. One of the other amazing things that they do is that they've been training corporate boards for over 30 years in how to be more effective environmental stewards of their companies. And so when Emily and I started talking about CISL, when I met some of the senior leadership of CISL, this was when the light bulb went off. So we can actually develop an education, we're a university. We need to create change through education. We can actually develop a bespoke educational programme that we can invite our fund managers to come on, which is going to help them to learn about the effective ways of influencing the companies that they own, depending on which asset class, through their governance rights. And most of our managers were really excited about this, because they want to be good environmental stewards, but they may be small boutique. Firm, they may not have a dedicated sustainability person on their team. So they weren't quite sure where to start, but what we were coming on was saying we're going to give you the tools to start thinking about this in a more productive way. And do you give it to them? Like do they get, if they're one of your managers, do they get to send one person a year to this programme? Like how does it work? They came to CISL, they can't do it for nothing. I mean, Cambridge University is a charity. But they have tons of extra funding and the sloshing around, and since our endowment's relatively on the small side as we've discussed. So they do charge for it. They charge it as cost. It's a relatively modest cost. I mean, it's completely optional obviously for the managers to come on. We can't make them come on, they're their own people, but many of them have chosen to come on it for a modest cost, they can send. Normally, they send it to us. Right, no, I can't at all. And it runs over a few months. Basically, the format is a kickoff workshop where we talk about the big picture, we talk about the facts on the ground, the situation at hand in the environment. Amazingly, lots of people are really surprised to see all of the extent of the climate emergency. We then move on to a virtual session where we talk about regulatory and policy frameworks. And then we wrap up with one and a half day in-person event in Cambridge, where we then talk about solutions, implementation, approaches to portfolio management, and again, somewhat tailored by asset class, and actually real world, so the next steps and practical decisions that the portfolio managers can be thinking about as they go back into their firms. Could we set, like, if I was running Stanford's endowment, could I send my managers to your program and have them have the same experience, or is it? I mean, at the moment, we have been running it for the managers that work with Cambridge University Endowment, then we have actually thought about trying to run one for other endowment managers. So that would be really interesting for me to consider. Just seems like if you've invented it, it could be the world is crying out for education, for investors. Maybe that would be really interesting. Well, maybe we'll get some pension managers that won't feel, you know. But, you know, CISL also runs tons of programs, that anybody can go on. They run a lot of open programs as well, both executive and general formal degree programs. The next one, and then Daniel will come to you soon for the deep thought, but the resources available to what I call activation energy. So how we, like, you're sitting here, you've got the problem, it seems like the problem is being pushed on you through your stakeholders at the university. And so almost by the fact that, like, they're standing up and saying, the endowment has to change, gives you license to change. Now, the change is for you to define, but I'm curious, like, was that enough to have these stakeholders pushing you to change, to drive this change? Or did you have to go to the board? Did you have to go to the president of the university chancellor of the university? Help us understand a little bit how you secured the resources to get this plan in place? Yeah, I mean, this kind of whole ideation process listening, you know, coming up with the overarching goal of decarbonisation, realizing that we have these amazing resources within the university that could actually help us come up with some practical solutions that could be rolled out to the fund managers. That whole process took a long time. It took place over the course of about 10 months. So throughout that time, there were consultations with the board. The time I had two different boards, I don't have three different boards, but so we, in before implementing this strategy that had to be signed off by the company board, it was also discussed extensively with our, we have to, we have a fiduciary board that looks after university coverage, investment management, investment manager, because we're authorised and regulated by the FCA. We have a probably slightly different regulatory set up from the US University Endowment. And then we also have what we call an investment advisory board, which is more of an investment committee like structure, which applies more about asset allocation, fund manager selection and so on. So we discussed these approaches extensively with both of those groups. And then also with the university senior leadership, I mean, I, with the previous vice chancellor, Stephen Tune, he was very closely involved. So I had spoke with him on your Michikations. So it was very consultative throughout. I mean, it had to be something that sort of brought everybody back together again. And I think happily that has been the case for the most part since. Yeah, I guess you can't please everybody, but education is an input that I think everybody to place like Cambridge would get behind. So you're trying to build an educational program. and came up with a new video. So images also was very keen on our approach being specific to Cambridge. So what could be more specific than that? The Cambridge development academic program. So that was really nice. Yes, it's pretty unique that you can do that. All right, Daniel. How deep are we going? Okay, well, well, Tilly, in case you're not a frequent listener, this is usually the moment in which our podcast goes off the rails. And I get a bit philosophical because I can't help myself. Though today I think it's going to be within the bounds of comprehensibility, which I'll see. Okay, we maybe we could get literary. That would be really good. I'll try to get literary. Sometimes we do. I brought up a couple of novels on the podcast. I'll think of one if I can in the next 30 seconds. But we'll come back to you at the end of this soliloquy with a question. So one observation or pair of observations that I've been making as you've shared your story is that you've successfully turned a couple of problems into benefits. So one problem is that I think a lot of the sadly a lot of the undergraduate protesters that Ashby referenced at beginning of the call may not understand about a university and diamond or for that matter any large asset allocator is that to the extent you're investing in private markets you're doing so. As you said through other groups with whom you have sometimes 10 year contracts that spell out exactly where your authority starts and stops and there starts and stops. And you may not have the ability to turn on a dime in terms of what you require of them from a sustainability or net zero standpoint, whether that's an information request or changing the nature of the underlying companies that they invest in. The flip side of that which you mentioned and I hear mentioned much more rarely. I hear people talk about the problem all the time. But the benefit is that you're reach exceeds your grasp. So now instead of describing yourself as a 4.0 billion dollar endowment you are a 4.0 billion dollar endowment with relationships that can bring to bear leverage on investment institutions that presumably stand for many untold billions beyond that if not trillions and give them resources and guidance. So that's a silver lining. So that's a problem that I see is you say well we're a relatively small university endowment. And I appreciate the humility and I know the history if it's at all similar to the one that I witnessed at Oxford where you just had all these independent schools effectively running their own money and then. I would have reached more recently to come together. Yeah, there's 31 colleges and they all have their own endowments. People, people Americans, Americans like me tend to think of universities as organized as a single tree. And when I went from an American university to a British university I realized I was in a forest of many trees. But so the fact that you are relatively small and this is a global collective action problem. Somebody who's a cynic might say what does it matter what I do with my private life I should fly my private jet or cut down this tree in my backyard. You could ask the same of a 4 plus billion dollar endowment. What does it really matter in the context of 100 trillion or thereabouts of institutional monies in the world. But again, I think you've turned a potential, I wouldn't call that a problem, but a limitation into a benefit. Your unique perspective by saying look we're not just any midsize university endowment, we're Cambridge. We're one of the top five research universities in the world. We can bring a distinctive research approach to bear on this and then we can disseminate that information both to managers and potentially to other university endowments. And I love to Ashby's suggestion that we'll talk to pensions and sovereigns and superannuation funds as well because another university might say well we're another university and get a little bit proud when it comes to accepting advice. But I guarantee you the Cambridge name would be welcome at larger savings institutions who don't have the resources to even begin to answer the questions that you've been asking. So this being such a huge collective action problem, Cambridge having such an ultra long term view on it and such depth of resources makes me really excited about the work that you've done. And then this next and perhaps post final phase, which is how do you take it out to the world? You know, in a humble way, but also in an effective way because I think people need it and they need it from trusted sources and 800 years of not only witnessing the greatest minds come through town, but also think of the climate change. We should do it during that 800 years and the industrial revolutions and it's all there. So now taking the next 800 years in mind or at least 80 will settle for 80. I wanted to ask you how are you thinking about that last? It's it's you don't want to feel too self-promotional. I'm sure, but at the same time you've got a lot of great ideas to promote. So how are you thinking about beyond this podcast, sharing it with other institutions? Yeah, well, that's a great question and thank you for the really helpful summary. I think first of all, I just were highlighting one of the points you raised was obviously when we are asked with fund managers, they have lots of other assets as well, not just ours. So far with this course, we've run it four times. So four cohorts, we're just about to do the fifth cohort. So as of the end of this cohort, we will have had $250 billion of assets under management, go through the program. 27 fund managers, 40% of our NAV obviously, there's been some evolution of the portfolio during that time, but I think what's really important. I mean, answer your question I think in two ways. First of all, it's really important that this course isn't just a moment in time right? It's really easy to go on the course and say, oh, that was incredibly interesting and I learned a lot, but then you know, human nature has often just go back to doing things the way that we did them before. So the first of all, it's really important to say that the pro course itself is embedded in a broader program of engagement that we follow with all our fund managers across all asset classes. And it's tailored per asset class. So for example, in private equity, we're encouraging a lot of fund managers to measure their emissions because obviously what gets measured gets managed and conversely if it doesn't get measured, it's difficult to manage it. So, so for example, in that strand, we've gone from one buyout manager in our portfolio, about 15 measuring their emissions from us started to now 11 now to 15 them. And of course, there's some most general direction of travel for buyout managers to measure these things, but I'm hopeful we've had some improvements. And then we also as part of the project, as part of the course, we ask you to come up with a project that they can implement some kind of decarbonization project within their portfolio. And then of course, in all of our updates with them, we check in on the project and we ask them about how they're getting on. And really encouraging to see people really taking this by the horns and this countless examples of specific initiatives that have been undertaken as a result. I think we all know there is no one still the bullet answer to decarbonization. It's thousands and thousands and millions of small actions that are taken by economic actors all over the world throughout the economy. And in terms of how are we going to promote it more broadly, I think that's a really good challenge. I have to tell you, I don't have the answer to that as yet. But we've only been doing this for a few years and it's just getting really embedded now. It's just starting to have a lot of impact now. But I do think we are trying to find groups of peers, you know, speaking events, that kind of thing. We're also writing some white papers. We're trying to come up with a methodology for approaching decarbonization in hedge funds, which is currently very thorny area because as you may know, there's still no, there's still no working that protocol for whether emissions are reported across or net in long short portfolios. There are basic, basic building blocks that are not yet agreed upon by the industry. So we've got a whole series of projects underway. At the same time, we're a quite small team. We have an investment team of 10 people, total organizations, 20 people. So we're doing a lot that we definitely can do more to try to increase the impact as you suggest. I love it. You guys, um, Taylor, this has been fabulous. So thank you so much for coming. I'm going to do a little bit of a summary. summary, just from an academic lens, you can hear the things that I feel like I've learned. Then I'm going to let you react and tell me what I got wrong. And then we'll actually let you go because it's late there. So one of the big challenges every investor faces is spotting problems early to act on. And so one of the things that I've heard you talk about is how fundamental research can reveal things about your portfolio and you need to pay attention to it. So happens that you live in a university context where fundamental research is what you do. And so that doesn't mean that every CIO or CEO of an endowment actually takes the time to listen to faculty, staff, and students about the problems that they're observing. In fact, some endowments set themselves up off campus because they don't want to be directed to do things from faculty and staff. So what I hear you saying is you used these grumbling from faculty, staff, research experts to take a step back and really think about how can we improve our organization to achieve our goals. That's about taking the problems from your stakeholders, using them to build activation energy for a piece of innovation. Now once you had that activation energy, then you almost went back to those same stakeholders. You listened, you learned, but a big thread there was consensus building because it's not just a traditional negotiation. If somebody's telling you to divest entirely out of fossil fuels, you're not just going to do that necessarily. You need to go and help everybody understand your constraints before you can optimize. Then I heard you talk about the power of building a local solution, one that leverages your ecosystem where you actually have a right to solve the problem. And in this case, it was manager education through CISL. And I don't think any of us anywhere would argue you don't have that right. You do. And so you picked a solution for which you might be one of the best in the world to actually deliver the solution to the marketplace. And so from there, you're now in a position where your portfolio is moving towards that net zero and is more sustainable and resilient. And it is very much an endowment solution because you're partnering with managers. And it is university in the sense that you're delivering education. And so I couldn't help but think but what the golf course was to David Swenson, the Yale Golf Course and inviting managers and building relationships. The CISL could be to Tilly Franklin, inviting the managers and really building the relationships. It's just instead of golfing. You're asking them to do projects around decarbonization. It's still fun, not as you don't need to hit a golf ball. But am I close? I think one of the really fun things has been actually that the people coming on this course really benefit from meeting each other. That's something I should have mentioned before. It's been really fun. People from different geographies maybe who have an similar asset class, maybe two mid cap buyout managers who maybe have somewhat similar philosophy but they operate on other sides of the world. You can see them sort of fizzing ideas off each other. It's been really lovely. And of course just showing everybody Cambridge as well. It's so unfortunate to have this incredible place to bring people just coming to Cambridge as well. It's a huge energizer. We take them to Dino in one of the historic colleges. And then thinking about sustainability then it really brings it home. We've got to preserve this thing. It's unique. So it's been really, it has been really heartwarming fun and a huge relationship, boosts in many cases as well. Which is, it's all about relationships right in this business at the end of the day. It is. Well, Telley, thank you so much. CEO, CIO, University of Cambridge Investment Management. Thank you for your transparency around the work you're doing. But also thank you for the innovation you're delivering the world. Thank you so much. It's been so much fun. It's been real pleasure. So much fun. And as to the listeners, we'll be back with more case studies and innovation as our 2025 gets cooking. See you then.