Thanks for the question. I think it's a really good one and is at the core of what we need to figure out.
You talked about the portfolio approach. First of all, I agree with James that the portfolio goal should be long term. If we start to worry and become wound up about the loss percentage in year one or year three, that will adversely affect decision-making and might introduce some self-imposed goals that aren't realistic concerning what the institution can accomplish.
That being said, I think overall that the concept that you look to balance off good risks with the more difficult risks is the way to go. I don't know whether the percentage is 15% or what it is, but there needs to be a concerted effort to take risk capital, which is almost like a pool within the institution, and target it. There should be almost not a quota but a target attached to it saying, “You will deploy this into the higher risk segments of your mandate.” There should be accountability around it to say how this is done, making sure that it's going to the poorest and most vulnerable and making sure that core elements of the strategy, for example, women and girls, are accomplished in an effective way.
Concerning your question about where the lower-risk assets should be, the example of luxury hotels.... Obviously, I don't know whether that's what you want to do. I think that in principle the idea of cross-subsidizing the portfolio by doing lower-risk things—for example, co-investing in funds that have a track record, that accomplish solid things, and where we can be relatively certain that the losses will be contained—should be part of the model. This almost clarifies my opening remark, which was that I'm not against doing lower-risk activities, but the portfolio has to be balanced.