Before we move on to how you can use financial structures to address specific risks on the risk return impact axis, it's important to understand the difference between real and perceived risk. Real risks are things that could actually happen, like the risk, that an exchange rate will fluctuate between two countries, or that political instability will affect an economy's growth. Real risks have data available that allow us to estimate what the likelihood is that they will happen. Those estimates are just that, estimates, but they stem from the understanding of what has happened before and what could happen in the future. Perceived risk, stem more from a lack of data or understanding than actual potential of happening. Perceived risks are a particular issue when you're creating a new financing structure or asking investors to invest in a new geographic or socioeconomic area. A great example of perceived risk is in the area of microfinance. The common misconception, was that it was simply too risky to lend to poor borrowers. So, some of the market building had to happen in the first decades of microfinance, was actually to combat the perceived risk of default. Once the perceived risk of high default rates was debunked, most microfinance organizations actually have lower default rates than traditional banks. The industry was able to grow commercially, and funders were able to price the risk of lending to small borrowers, based off of data collected versus preconceived notions. The reason that it is important to understand these differences, is that you can design different innovative financing strategies to address real risks and perceived risks. You'll see in the case of Ashburton this week, that one of their biggest issues was actually the perceived risk of lending SMEs with social impact. The traditional funders that they approached to back their fund were concerned that these businesses wouldn't be able to make the profits required to repay loans. They saw their impact as a potential liability. One that they didn't know how to price. Now this was despite Heather and Dean's track record lending to socially oriented businesses. Heather and Dean are not alone in this regard. The idea that companies can be committed to social and environmental objectives, and also be a profitable investment, is not something that most mainstream investors believe. Many still believe, that a commitment to social and environmental objectives will endanger a company's profitability, not to support it. Until there's a sufficient data to be able to prove what affect the pursuit of impact on long term profit has, investors will continue to struggle to price impact organisations along more traditional investments. As we spoke about in our risk return impact axis, the impact line is not standardized, and there is no defined relationship between the impact axis and the other two. Whereas we know in general, when risk goes up, we expect the return to increase. We don't have enough data to make assumptions about what happens when companies are more impactful. Does that make them less risky? Does that increase their return? Unfortunately, we don't have enough data or standardization to determine that. This is why multi-stakeholder partnerships where some parties are willing to bear more of the real or perceived risk, can be especially important in innovative finance, to bring in more traditional funders. As we discussed in the first week, innovative financing is about addressing the issues that stop resources from falling towards the projects, and the entrepreneurs that are achieving results. So all the structuring concepts we are going to discuss, should be viewed in that lens. Next up, we're going to talk about how you address specific risks that funders may identify.