I would add that certainly I think it's true that having an intermediary in place can provide the confidence for investors that the upfront case that's been developed has been so certainly with rigour and with some semi-independence, at least, as that case itself has developed and has moved forward. I think it's equally important to note that the ongoing governance associated with an implemented social impact bond and the validated reporting that would flow from the actual operations in the life cycle of the social impact bond, up to investors and government as well actually, are being done by an organization whose interests are not exactly the same as those of the service provider. There is some ability to manage key performance in the interim in the life cycle and actually to help rapidly procure and support with other organizations that might also need to be brought in. Maybe an organization realizes that there are other services that would be really complementary to what's going on, and an intermediary could very rapidly help bring those together.
On May 29th, 2014. See this statement in context.