I would not like to be contrasted or compared to a payday lender. I don't think that's how we think about this at all.
Fundamentally, most of our clients are service delivery organizations. We designed this from their intentionality, with their perspectives at the table guiding the process from day one. Absolutely that is true.
From there when we think about whether or not the government is targeting savings, monetizable savings, or value for money, that decision, and it is a priority, there's a spectrum there, is in the court of government to decide.
Some SIBs have been designed with a very careful focus on exclusively variable costs. They had been driven by producing savings. There are also social impact bonds that have been driven and designed by social situations that haven't seen change in a long time. These issues have been stagnant, and we wished there was some kind of innovative capacity in that sector that these can drive.
As we think about that on-ramp and we think about the legacy of these tools, we think about that very consciously. We think there's a very strong role to say let's use these tools based on this standard, with these standards in place, but use it where we can see a bit of an on-ramp through that evidence-building process of policy change as well.
Things that work do grow in that respect.