I'll give you my best on that. As much as I'd like to think of my comments as being definitive, they rarely are.
The gap comes largely, I think, from a failure sometimes of financial institutions and capital markets to understand risk in relation to community-based organizations and how to understand it and quantify it. The first issue I would flag is that it's not necessarily riskier, and doesn't probably actually need credit enhancements in terms of most of the loans and investments we're making, but we need to bring financial institutions and traditional credit analysis along. That's why I think these credit enhancements are, as Sandra pointed out, important.
So the gap exists largely because the borrower does not present as traditional for-profit borrowers present. They have different assets. They have volunteer boards. They have deep historical experience within the community. They're addressing a central need that you can rely on...on municipalities and provincial government and federal government to stand close to, even if they're not at the lead with this non-profit.
I think the goal of Resilient Capital is really to demonstrate the creditworthiness of most of the loans and investments we make, which is ironic, because the most difficult element of it was probably raising the $2 million in first-loss money.
Does that help?