Political will to apply this tool, and i think its a very valid and useful tool for toolkit in the United States, and so we have examples for tunisia and egypt that well talk about, so well talk a little bit about the history of what are these things, how they come about, what can we learn from the past, how are some more recent ones operating, and finally, the most important thing is about the future because i think in some ways this was certainly ahead of its time and theres a lot of learning from the past, but i think there are plenty of countries where we ought to be applying this in new additional countries, but also may be in different ways given the fact that the world is changed from 25 years ago. The instrument needs to adapt the time. We have a very experienced group of panelists. Im excited to have all the smart folks on the panel. I wont go into detailed bios for each of them but i will ask my friend whos the executive director of European Cooperative for Rural Development and the system administrator. Thanks for flying in from brussels to be here. Lets give us a little context here. Sure. I see some of the people in the audience. Ill just give you a brief perspective of what i have coming in a 1993 and seeing what it was like through the 90s and early 2000 and then have colleagues seeing what they were like when they started up again in 2012. I think it was truly designed for solutions to a problem in a very specific context. Kim will be able to talk more about that because what we had as we were looking at a dual mandate of how does the u. S. Mandate get involved in these countries in a quick ways we can get quick results, they were the ones going to shock therapy, president bush want to announce something, these were designed in a vacuum, the u. S. Government does not have the Technical Expertise to look at private equities in venture capital, this is not what we do. We can hire private boards to come in and set up these in a price times. I dont think and there are probably other congressional staffers here who can attest to the fact that no one thought these were going to be financially viable or sustainable. Theres not a lot of thought into what happens after liquidation. Then we spent most of 2010 onward trying to figure out what to do about the sedation, legacy funds, things that we could do to leave behind. Backing up the Enterprise Fund at this point, the creation happened so quickly and the dual mandate of you need to transition these countries from a market economy, yet at the same time you need to make money, and then the mandate of development which was sort of left to each individual board, as to how much of it would be truly developmental four. Sake or was it going to be we will set up an airport in albania, will set up a Banking Center in bulgaria, we will work with mortgage lending in the baltics, these things were decided amongst the private sector board so usa d oversight became somewhat tenuous as congress continued to ask question, what are you doing, how quickly can they react, and so we went through a growth. Over 25 years, and i believe a report will be coming out soon as to what these Enterprise Funds in a legacy have left behind 25 years later. I think other members from the remaining. [inaudible] there are a number of people who are still part of this and actively involved, but what can we do in enterprise version 2. 0. They have to deal with very effective and educated people who just and have institutions in place. Those are things where those funds were able to jumpstart. Usaids continued oversight of that has gone from just being involved to having 1001 questions asked of you and when the Enterprise Fund started in 2011 and 2012 after the arab spring, no one really knew what their relationship was going to be. Ill let jim talk more about that. I think the unique challenge is usa d has credit authority, they have power africa and a lot of innovated tools that ive actually moved overseas and im working on partnerships with the dutch government to look at other innovative ways to bring private sector in so its not just the public funding that has to go into jumpstart some of these economies. I would say that on a whole, theyve been successful, there are a couple that were unfortunately had returns at the end of the day, but when you look at the actual fact of one point to billion in financing going to ten Enterprise Funds covering 19, or 14 countries, 6. 9 billion in private capital being leveraged on that one point to, and then 225 being returned to treasury at the end of it, thats a Successful Development program. Its wonderful they were able to do that at the time and the question is, what can we do to expand on that and do something new in some of the newer countries. Great, thank you. I want to skip over bo and jim and i want to ask him davis to make some remarks. She is the chair of the American Freedom foundation, also managing director and cochair of the capital partners, but more importantly, you shared the baltic Enterprise Fund as well as the acting ceo of the czechoslovakian enterprise earlier in your career. How did you end up getting those jobs. Those are paid jobs. You had have a day job but you are doing this, how did you end up getting that phone call and why did you say yes . The first phone call was to join the baltic american Enterprise Fund and i thought it would be an interesting way to observe the transition of postsoviet countries. That was an easy yes. They needed people with private equity experience and ive done that. The other experience arose because one of our other directors was appointed by the white house as the acting board when the first board had iran into some trouble. That director asked me too step in as the acting director which i did in 1996 and moved everything down to slovakia which was the only business decision that was available to us at that time. I had a very funny meeting with the investor in the Czech Republic who said im glad to meet you and i hope i never see you again after you leave the Czech Republic in the fund is out. That was not particularly successful. In general, anyone who thanks that Enterprise Funds will have a distric different distribution curve are missing the point. There will be some good deals and bad deals and some good funds and bad funds. We have to simply accept that as a matter of course. Then, if i might, we had a challenge that was very, very different than the one that jim and bo does but i think a much more receptive environment, but just to give you a sense, i think the baltic Enterprise Fund was a successful fun. We started with 59. 3 countries. We made three specific decisions. We were going to focus on the credit markets, we were not going to adopt a quota system but we are going to respond to Market Opportunities and invest a lot in building our staff is a real legacy of what were going to leave behind. We ended up with two businesses, a Mortgage Business and a Mezzanine Capital business but i think one of the mistakes people make is they think Enterprise Fund means being a private Equity Investor. I dont think thats true. Private equity in emerging markets with fragile legal structures is really difficult whereas i think the credit markets are more open to innovation and Development Tool tools. Our 50 million turned into 820 million of invested capital both with three flows and capital we leveraged. We originated 20000 mortgages and accomplished the first securitization of a Mortgage Backed security in eastern europe. For us, we ended up with 60 million, and you could say g, 60 million over ten years is not a particularly great internal rate of return but given three countries and given the 1998 russia crisis and given our development objectives, our view was that if we focused on preservation of capital and modest returns, investing in the quality of our staff and leaving a legacy behind of a more developed Capital Market that we would have done our job. We are still at it now as a Legacy Foundation so while i dont think what we did is necessarily replicable in the same way in tunisia and egypt because the political environments are so different, i would like to think that the Enterprise Fund is an example of why the concept should have a second life, perhaps with some different rules in different environments, but it is definitely a worthwhile endeavor and the ability to Leverage Private sector volunteers which we all are as Board Members with usaid and state department folks as well as local governments and local citizens i think is a wonderful model of public diplomacy. So kim, how important is it to have the right board. It is the number one and only thing. We were very lucky. We have six Board Members, weve never met each other, we have the same six Board Members from 1994 to 2007. We had a great initial chair who had been assistant secretary of state under president reagan. The two most famous people in the baltics were Pope John Paul ii and Ronald Reagan. We actually came in to a pretty receptive environment. Roz was a great leader to have. The board is everything. The board has to exercise real oversight. We had active committees, we didnt micromanage management, but we absolutely knew what they were doing all the time. I think that allowed us to change course we had to redirect resources when we had to, and innovate when we have to. What about when you started making money, what happened, did the government say what i do with this money . What was that conversation like . We sold all of our business in 2007. In 2007 we liquidated and sold our capital business to a hedge fund and we sold our mortgage bank, which by that time was 140 from servicing to an irish bank. My friend paige and i had spirited conversations about what to do with all of our money and ultimately we sent 25 million back to the treasury and we kept 35 million for our Legacy Foundation which is part of work as we speak. Can you just spend a minute more on czechoslovakia . How they find you and what did they want you to do and what did you do. So the acting board act asked us to step in and i was between moves in my career and i had six months available so i took the job and flew to prague. I think thats a story of a board that came in that in 1993 and decided that their job was to invest in anything and everything in minority equity positions in a country where there was just no Legal Framework or cultural understanding of what a private Equity Investment was. It was a mess. They lost about 75 of their capital in the first two years. Again, ive been in this business my entire life. You do lose money but they lost it at a rate beyond normal. Does this have a happy outcome . We close down the check activity, moved everything to slovakia and they had a second go at it. I think they did some very good things, there is a Legacy Foundation there, its unfortunate that we lost our ability to continue in the checkeCzech Republic but there is no additional funding available given the history. So its fair to say it was somewhat turned around. Yes, it was turned around with a much smaller footprint. Okay, thats the point i want people to come away with. There are some hiccups and some interventions made and then i had a pretty good turnaround outcome. Is that fair. Yes. Once we accept the fact that we lost 35 of our capital, we did good things with what was remaining. But, people are going to lose money, you want to make bad deals, youre going to get your hiccups and you just have to learn how to absorb them and move on. Thats what we did. Okay. I want to spend one more moment on the history and then i wanted turned to the present and then i want the four of my panel to talk about the future. I just want to spend, i want to spend one minute on the past. Page, i think there are, theres a historic memory of the Enterprise Fund. Theres sort of a short list of complaints that some folks have. If someone was here and said what about that funder this fund that we were unhappy with, whats your response to that . What would you say to some member of congress who says were not happy. Whats your response to that. Refers to aig, i would say yes, there were hiccups in a lot of funds, the way they were liquidated at the end of the day some had diminished returns and they just sort of morphed into legacy funds to do something small, but the majority of them ended up making unbelievable returns and in bulgaria, for example, although there were some concerns about it, the Bulgaria Fund ended up walking away with 200, 422 million at the end of the day and they all had a return 27 million to the u. S. Government because the decision was made at a time when Congress Just thought they were funds that would grant out that the question was due return the liquidated assets to treasury or are you able to just return half of the initial grade up. Regardless the u. S. Government got 225 million back from a Development Grant program and thats almost unheard of. That is a broadly Successful Development program when you are returning money to the u. S. Government. I would say each issue, as kim mentioned, some of them were the board structure, they just werent structured well and there were incentives set in each of the boards that haven shouldnt have been there or were there for the wrong reasons or it just wasnt a friendly environment. I think jim can talk more about the different environments they are facing now versus what Ronald Reagan and the pope, what they faced in the baltics. The u. S. Was well loved and was helpful because you are able to do everything in conjunction with the government. Let me ask another leading question. We have three or four heads up funds to the ruler 12 or 14 funds that were great. Thats the Bumper Sticker you should take away from the. Absolutely. So when people say yes, there are a couple funds, yes, that was the small minority of funds. Most of these were smashing successes. The other thing i think its fair to say is that the u. S. Government and the fund aboard themselves and investment professionals have a lot of learning. This was ahead of its time. Theres been a lot of learning and improvement all along the way in the past 25 years productive her statement too. Absolutely. I think congressional oversight, executive branch oversight, these are things that also have a lot of learning and growing to do. As we talked about earlier, congress is coming out this from a very different angle. One party wanted one thing thats part of the reason the baltic money had been held up. Corker want Something Else, its very difficult to react to congressional wants and interests at the same time a policy imperative to get things moving quickly and looking at the market and recognizing these things werent meant to move quickly. My one last point, page, when you were in the chair of systems administrator, you asked the staff to put together all the Lessons Learned which is sort of my view as the must read document on where we are in the Enterprise Fund so if you could just spend a few minutes. I think there are probably two mustread documents. One is available now and then in 2013 with the people from the Eurasia Bureau and there was another one that was done recently and it hopefully will come out soon that is on the overall legacy of Enterprise Funds. Both those documents stand as Lessons Learned for this type of Innovative Private sector, private act there activity. Thank you. Thats enough about the past for the point is, lots of learning, lots of success and learnings from the errors and improving upon the heirs. Thats the take away from this. Okay. Lets move to the present. Let me start with my friend jim harmon. Jim, you got a phone call from tom. They said we need you to help set up an Enterprise Fund in egypt. What was your reaction and why did you say yes . Thank you dan. First time i congratulate you and see sis for doing this. Its a subject that wanted to review and its good to have the opportunity to discuss it with you. Secondly, youve invited some people who are very good illustrations of talented people, and they might even think they may be the best of a lot of the people who have run Enterprise Funds. You should know, not everybody i have met who has taken on this assignment has been quite as effective as the group in front of you now. Now, i got a call, i had served in the Clinton Administration from 97 to 2001. I was chair of the axiom bank. I didnt know what an Enterprise Fund was and no one talked about Enterprise Funds at the bank during those four years. Maybe that was my fault, but i certainly