Family Philanthropy Speaks: A Conversation with Dimple Abichandani and Robin Snidow
Dimple Abichandani, Executive Director of the General Service Foundation (GSF), works closely with the foundation’s chair, Robin Snidow. In this Family Philanthropy Speaks episode, the pair talk with NCFP President and CEO Nick Tedesco about their philanthropic journeys, GSF’s spending policy and values-aligned practices, and how they’ve fostered a meaningful relationship with one another.
About the Series
Philanthropy is a practice borne out of compassion and commitment—and one that is deeply rooted in family. It’s also a practice that must continue to evolve to effectively meet the needs of the communities it seeks to serve. Thankfully, there are countless social sector leaders who are advancing the field with their bold ideas and unwavering enthusiasm for the greater good. The National Center for Family Philanthropy is honored to share the stories of these leaders through its program, Family Philanthropy Speaks—a series of conversations designed to feature the innovative spirit of family philanthropy. These dynamic discussions aim to capture emerging trends and solutions, share new and diverse voices in the field, and lift up the role of family philanthropy—past, present, and future—in stewarding social change. We hope you will join us to explore what it means to give with intention!
Watch more Family Philanthropy Speaks conversations here.
Nick Tedesco: Welcome to the Family Philanthropy Speaks video blog series from the National Center for Family Philanthropy. These conversations highlight the innovative spirit of family giving. Our guests today are Dimple Abichandani and Robin Snidow. Dimple is the executive director of the General Service Foundation. She brings her social justice and legal background to the role and has led the foundation’s work to better align its practices with its values. Robin chairs the foundation’s board following in the footsteps of her grandfather, and was formerly the foundations program officer for reproductive health and rights.
In our conversation today, we’ll explore the evolution of the foundation, its shifted practices and the relationship between board chair and executive director among other issues. Dimple and Robin, welcome. Thank you for joining us.
Dimple Abichandani: Thank you so much for having us.
Robin Snidow: Yeah, thank you so much, Nick.
Nick Tedesco: I’d love to hear a little bit more about why you chose the General Service Foundation, and when you knew that this role was going to be a good fit for you?
Dimple Abichandani: Yeah. This position came open in 2015, and at the time I was the executive director of the center for social justice at Berkeley law school. What I was doing there was really thinking a lot. I was doing a whole body of work that was about the next era of social justice work, and what it needed, like what was needed to support it. I was really focused on the emerging possibilities with the Black Lives Matter movement. It had been less than a year since the uprisings in Ferguson, and I wasn’t working in philanthropy at the time, but I was seeing funders really struggling with how to relate to this movement.
So, I had known General Service Foundation and had enormous respect for their work as a long time social justice funder. And as I went through the search process, my curiosity and interest was, is this a place where we can experiment with what it takes to support movements, and what does it take for philanthropy to … In a way it’s like, how do we as funders evolve, given how rapidly the context for change is evolving. Not every foundation is suited for that because oftentimes foundations are quite rigid in their ways. Like they have their way of doing things, and everybody else has to come in the door and adapt.
What I found as I went through the process was this real curiosity. I found a board that had a role learning stance. I found a culture that supports innovation. So I think even before I was actually in the role, I started to suspect it was a fit. The other thing I’ll say is, they had this 10 page long job description that was honestly quite daunting, but there was this section in it, it was titled culture and they described the culture as being love around the table. I circled that and I highlighted it and it really drew me in, it spoke to some deep longing, I think, that I had, having spent so much of my career in legal settings where I was describing to Robin like it’s the boards that I had served on sometimes, they were brains around the table.
So like it was not love on the table. I went through the process trying to see, “Well, what is that? What is loving around the table?” As I stepped into those role, if I had to tell you now, what is that? I would say, it’s the invitation to all of us who are connected to the foundation, and that means staff, that means board. It means our grantees. It’s an invitation to show up wholly as your full self. So for me, it’s been such a joy to lead in that kind of heart-centered way and in a place where we all are showing up fully.
Nick Tedesco: What a beautiful journey from the dinner table exploring what’s possible to the boardroom table to continue to explore what’s possible. Well, Robin, we’d love to hear a little bit about the history and the evolution of the foundation.
Robin Snidow: Sure. It’s particularly pointing to ask that now, because this year we’re celebrating our 75th anniversary. The foundation was founded in 1946 by my great grandparents, and since then, the family’s always been involved, sat on the board, done program, staffed the foundation up until the early 90s when we moved to a more professional staff. The word evolution is such a good one for you to use, and Dimple said it, and I say it all the time because I do see the through lines from way back in 1946 to my grandparents doing the program work to the third generation to now the fourth and now the fifth.
So I do see the trend lines that have carried us through, and I think it’s very powerful to know that we stand on a very solid foundation, and people really draw on that history, but it’s not stagnant, and we know that it is a dynamic institution and we’re constantly evolving.
Nick Tedesco: I’d love to hear a little bit more about this idea of love around the table. It’s really powerful. So can you share a little bit about how that’s fostered at the board level and how it reflects the values of the foundation?
Robin Snidow: Sure. I think it came out of the values that the foundation had identified through a process many years ago, and we really tried to put action words to those values, and love around the table was one of those actions that came out of looking at our values. Since then, it’s taken on a life of its own, and it’s really how we, as Dimple said, show up wholly. But it’s also how we treat each other, the relationships that are amongst not just the family, but our non-family board members, as well as our staff, and we call ourselves the GSF family, and that includes all those people.
But I know as a family member, we’re all grateful that we get to work with our family who we may not know as well if we didn’t have the foundation. That’s really important to us. So the love around the table, it also keeps evolving. I think love around the table includes our grantees and have the relationships that we have with our grantees. It includes our partner networks and just how we show up.
Nick Tedesco: So wonderful north star, for sure. As you reflect on your values, I’m curious, how often are you having the conversation at the board level around the relevancy of those values and what you might add or adjust, or just revisit to ensure that you’re still orienting yourself towards those values?
Robin Snidow: Yeah. Excellent question. I mean the short answer is, I think our values drive all our work. I think I’ve said this to you before, but I view them as our guardrails. Like when you’re bowling, sometimes you put up those bumpers and it keeps the ball in the middle of the bowling alley. The values for us are that. So, if we are in a tough situation or have a question or looking to do something new, I hear every board member and staff member refer back to what are our values telling us what to do in this situation, and it’s so helpful. I think it’s the most important way that we show up to do our work, is to keep those values as our guard rails.
Nick Tedesco: Robin, I know that you have mentioned that at every board meeting, you read out loud the full letter from the founder that was originally written in 1946, Dimple, I’m wondering if you have anything else to add around what it means to reflect on that letter at each board meeting and to look at those values as those guard rails, and also how you see that as ever green document that is something that needs to be reinterpreted in moments like the current one?
Dimple Abichandani: Well, I’ll say what we do is, we read the document, but we don’t just read it. We read it and then we pause and we say, “What resonates today?” At every meeting. That does really bring the document to life because what we’re doing is, we’re almost like time traveling together from September 3rd, 1946 to the present moment, and we’re saying what’s still alive today.
In the first sentence of that letter, Clifton says … I’m paraphrasing because he says it more beautifully than I can, but he says, “I’m handing over these assets to the foundation with hope that good can be done for humanity and fear that the chaotic conditions of the world today will swallow up your efforts to do good.” And so, one of the things that has really struck me is how 75 years later, almost every time that we read it, one of the things that really resonates is that we are once again in a moment where many of us are feeling torn between the chaos and the urgency of the needs in our world, and then hope, right, that the idea that we keep chipping away at this, we keep making our best efforts, and we do it because we’re clear that we want to be a part of making a better future.
So, I mean, there’s the literal words like that, that jump off the page, both that remind us of the progress that’s been made in 75 years, and then that we have so much more work to do. And then there’s the … what’s the way to put this? There’s the way in which his actions and inactions inspire our actions today. He says, “I don’t think any man is wise enough to know what’s going to happen 50 years in the future. So I think it’s better not to put limitations on what you do and what the foundation does.”
Paraphrased in today’s language. He’s saying, “I trust you. I trust you to make good decisions.” That lives in our culture. I think that all of us who are associated with the foundation, we feel that trust that’s been passed on to us, not in a way that allows us to take risks. Right? We also feel a humility that he models in that letter, but what’s beautiful about it is, he’s not saying, “I don’t know anything.” He’s saying, “I know some big problems need to be solved, but I don’t have all the wisdom.” That lives in our culture today too.
I mean, I think we know that there’s work to do, but we don’t assume that we’re the experts on all of it. So there’s a beautiful way in which when we read that letter, I feel like what we’re doing is we’re stepping into some of the hallmarks of our culture that are embodied in that letter, and that’s what makes it a living document.
Nick Tedesco: I want to talk a little bit about the last 18 months and the season of shift that we are all in. How has the foundation shifted its practices, if at all, to meet the series of moments that have been present over the last 18 months? And maybe Dimple I’ll start with you on that.
Dimple Abichandani: The most significant shift that we’ve made is that we dramatically increased our grant making. There is a whole series of other shifts that we had made going all the way back to the 2016 election, that’s when we made a bunch of shifts to our practices, we shifted how we fund, who we fund, and many of those early shifts we made are ones that other foundations adopted in this time of crisis. But for us, the big shift was, we were already spending well above the 5%, we were spending at about 8% of our endowment.
But in early May of 2020, when our board got together and reflected on how do we understand the COVID crisis? And this was at a moment where our endowment was down by 20% and we anticipated it would continue to be down. Our board made a decision to increase our payout to 10% for 2020, and then for the following three years as well. So they made that commitment for four years. That is the first time in our history that we’ve done that, there were two things I would say that allowed us to do that, or that motivated us to do that.
One was shared clarity in our institution that, when we looked at COVID at a time where many people were understanding COVID from the lens of like, “This is a natural disaster.” We looked at COVID and we said, “This is very much a manmade disaster of racial injustice and deep inequality.” And we were seeing the ways in which those two things were really a matter of life and death. I think our board said we want to be the generation that steps in and says enough.
The other thing that allowed us to make that decision is that we had moved how we made our spending decisions to our more values and mission oriented approach, and we had done that after the 2016 election, but we had that process. So when you have processes that are values aligned, you make decisions that are values aligned. So our values aligned process resulted in us being able to make this bolder spending decision and to step in and make grants that I think along with so many other funders, like it’s never as alone, but I look at the work that we funded last year in an effort to secure our democracy, and I know it made a difference.
I feel like we were so close and we still are in some ways. Our democracy is so precarious, and we funded work that was bold and that was joyful and that was impactful, and we were able to do that because we stepped into our values.
Nick Tedesco:I want to come back to the spending policy in a moment, but Robin, I want to explore more deeply the conversations around the shift in practice and the decision to increase spend.
Robin Snidow: I don’t think any of this is a light switch and you don’t just turn it on, all of this work and coming to a decision to spend more, dramatically more, is built upon relationships and trust that we have at the board and staff level. So having this idea when Dimple presented it to the board, there’s such comradery trust between the board and the staff, between the Dimple and myself, that we didn’t have any hard conversations around that. There was nothing but enthusiasm.
We have a culture at the board level that is always asking, “What can we do? What more can we do?” We use the word more a lot. So it wasn’t a hard decision. It was the right decision and people were really excited about it. I mean, I do think the work that we had done the previous five years really, really engaging the board at all levels gave us the foundation to be able to present that to the board, and for them to say yes.
Nick Tedesco: Many that are watching are probably wondering about the composition of the boards.
Robin Snidow: We are a board of 13, three of whom are … We call them fresh perspectives, but members of our board who are not members of our family, and we have always had a fresh perspective on our board since the beginning. That has been a real asset to our organization, hands down one of the best. Then the makeup of the family members that are on the board, we have our first fifth generation board member now, two from the third and the rest of us in the fourth, and we’re at the point where it’s really second cousins working together.
Robin Snidow: Although, as I said earlier, we have the privilege of really knowing each other well through the foundation. So I would venture to say that those of us who work together feel like we’re incredibly close to these family members because we get to have this working relationship.
Dimple Abichandani: What’s been nice about the fact that we have multiple spots to fill is that we almost always … Since I’ve been at the foundation, we almost always have at least one grantee. So it’s like more specific than just community, but actually a grantee perspective. And then we try to also have a philanthropic colleague, and I think what we’ve seen is, the impact of that then is that some of what we’re doing at the foundation ripples out beyond into the sector.
So, Carmen Rojas, who now runs Marguerite Casey, she’s been on our board for five years, and she’s wrapping up her term. Vini Bhansali, who runs Solidaire Network is joining after Carmen rotates off. I mean, they both are sisters to me and they’re both leading lights in our sector. They’ve been drawn to GSF because we are an institution that’s innovating in this space, and then they both are innovators as well and have been able to inspire changes to our work, and then also bring what we’re doing out into the sector. So it feels like a wonderful exchange.
Nick Tedesco: And an incredible group of leaders who are helping to guide the foundation in addition to the wonderful family members. I want to come back to the spending policies.
Dimple Abichandani: I’ll start with what led me to create it. Our foundation had used a traditional spending policy that … Most foundations use some version of this where we would essentially calculate a certain percentage and determine our budget using that. Right? And in our case, we used to calculate 3.75% of our rolling average, three-year rolling average, and that would go towards grants, and then we would add on our admin expenses and our spending used to be somewhere between 5.2 to 5.7%.
Like many other funders, after the 2016 election, we decided to increase our spending. When I went to the board, we had already used our spending policy and come up with our budget. So I said, “I’m making a request for a one-time additional increase.” And as we moved into 2017, I realized, “Oh, I’m going to have to go back and do another one time, a second time, one time increase, and I was really struck by how the formula by which we made one of our most important decisions did not account for what was happening outside of the foundation, except in the markets. Right? I guess you could argue it accounted for that.
I just started researching and I started talking to other foundations. I found out that this is how it’s always been done. I started looking at what had been written about it, there’s very little actually that had been written, but the people who had written about it were all investment advisors. I was really struck with how the people who were considered experts on the topic of how much a foundation should spend, were the investment advisors. And one could argue that, while they have expertise over your endowment, they certainly are not issue based experts or substantive experts about your mission, and what a foundation is trying to do.
So I started thinking about basically the complexity that should exist in that decision and what are ways that we make complex decisions. I drew inspiration from what is done in legal contexts, when you’re trying to make a decision that has many different factors at play, what courts will do is what’s called a balancing test where the judge will hear the specific facts on a series of factors and then balance them. And then the decision is described in terms of, “Well, I balanced factor A with factor B, and here’s where I came out.”
In back and forth in a process with Robin, we basically mapped out the seven different factors. I think the most important shift, there’s two, one is that we brought in to the decision-making process things that are not monetary, things that you can’t plug into a calculator, like our mission and values, like the needs in the moment, like the programmatic approach and strategy. So being able to factor in for that and center those things as much as we sent her, what our returns were in the stock market, I think was pretty game changing.
The other is that of the seven factors. One of them is perpetuity. And so, in the old model, perpetuity was the end all be all, because after we plugged in our numbers into the calculator and came up with our percentage, the final step of the traditional approach is to consult a perpetuity chart and make sure that you’re going to be around in perpetuity. And so, that approach is perpetuity yes or no. Right?
When you say perpetuity is one of seven factors, and that the work to be done is to balance these factors, then you have a different conversation about perpetuity. You’re not saying perpetuity yes or no, but you’re actually saying, “What does perpetuity mean in this moment, in this context?” It’s a lot harder. I ended up just talking about our spending process. It’s more than a policy, as being an example of deep governance, because our board’s willingness to have these conversations, to do this work where there’s not a right or wrong answer, but actually we are together grappling with strategic questions is, it’s hard work. I don’t think every board would be up for it, but what it has done for us is, I think it’s allowed us to be far more responsive as an institution to this moment.
Also, it’s allowed for a much deeper level of buy-in and an ownership at the board level of the choices that we’re making. So, it’s been really inspirational. Then as you know, many other foundations have adopted it, have put in their own factors and have adopted and adopted it. But that’s been a real joy to see, because as often happens, we were not the only ones who were struggling with the limitations of their traditional model. So it’s been exciting to have something that we developed really for our institution to have it be useful to our peers.
Nick Tedesco: Can you just briefly highlight the other six factors? You mentioned perpetuity as one, but if you can touch on the other six, and then-
Dimple Abichandani: Off the top of my head.
Nick Tedesco: Yeah
Robin Snidow: I will help you.
Dimple Abichandani: Trying to visualize perpetuity mission and values, investment returns, admin expenses, which interestingly is also where we have conversations about capacity. It’s not that conversation you would expect about like how do we keep adding the cost low, but actually is, how do we have the right capacity for the work we’re trying to do? Grants strategy, grants kind of what are we planning to do? And then there’s [crosstalk 00:27:40]
Robin Snidow: Growth, growth.
Dimple Abichandani: Growth goals. Yes. The growth one is really important. So that is about, let’s not just grow for the sake of growing, but actually can we name what is our growth goal so that we know when we’ve reached it so that we know we can do more when we’ve reached it. Then what was the last one?
Robin Snidow: Meeting the moment.
Dimple Abichandani: Meeting the moment.
Robin Snidow: Meeting the moment.
Dimple Abichandani: How did I forget that one?
Robin Snidow: I don’t know.
Dimple Abichandani: That’s the one where we talk about what is this moment. So, going back to May of 2020, we had just had a spending conversation in November of 2019. We didn’t need to talk about all the factors, we did a quick slideshow with them, but what we actually spent most of our time talking about is meeting the moment and about what is this moment? How do we understand this moment, and what will it take to meet up?
Nick Tedesco: So, Robin, I want to talk a little bit more about your shift in grant making. So, GSF shifted away from specific issue areas and towards a holistic approach to supporting organizations that contribute to a broad, sustainable intersectional movement for justice. So I’d love to hear a little bit about why this shift and any of the implications that you’d like to highlight from that.
Robin Snidow: Sure. I mean, one reason for the shift is we had a new leader who brought new eyes in to our organization and exposed us to doing things differently. We’d gone from three siloed program areas each with their own staff member, really operating as their own micro foundation in a way, isolated, to a feeling that we wanted to be more cohesive. We wanted to work as a board. We wanted to understand what we were doing, and we wanted, again, back to this whole self, we wanted to see the whole self of our grantees.
Nick Tedesco: And it sounds like a real portfolio approach to thinking about this work. So, it feels very similar to the way you’re thinking about spending as well, when you’re looking at balancing many factors and not looking at things discreetly, but as one set of complimentary factors. So, beautiful way to think about your grant making. Dimple, curious about how that changes staff structure and the way that staff work together when historically you might have people that are experts in a particular issue, now coming into work cross issue, or in compliment one another.
Dimple Abichandani: Yeah. I think one of the values that guided the move away from the issue specific portfolio was a value about how we believe those most impacted by injustice should be leading efforts, right, towards justice. So, embedded in that was this clarity that we shouldn’t be the ones that decide the issues, we’re not the experts. What it’s taken is almost like a reframing about what is the role of program staff and what is the expertise we look for in program staff.
Dimple Abichandani: And so, the things that I’m clear on are, on our team, I’m not looking for issue experts, I want issue experts to actually be leading the work. I am looking for people who are relationship builders. I’m looking for people who have a deep humility, who are really strong listeners and who have an aptitude for connecting the dots. So it’s changed how we work, we did away with the different silos and everybody having their own budgets. We have one portfolio and we work collaboratively, and what we’ve been striving towards is for our grantees to feel an institutional commitment to their work.
Dimple Abichandani: Oftentimes who they talk to at the foundation might change. Right? So sometimes somebody might talk to Holly, our senior program officer, and then the next time that person might talk to me, but I don’t think our grantees feel like they’re getting funded by Dimple or by Holly, I think they feel like they’re getting funded by GSF. And that’s really important because so much of what’s hard about being a grantee is that you work so hard to build a relationship with someone at a foundation, and then there’s like a shift, and that person leaves, and you feel like you’re starting all over again. I think part of giving grantees that runway is grantees actually feeling like they’re supported by the institution.
Nick Tedesco: I’m just really struck by your relationship and how positive and supportive it is, and I want to just have you share your thoughts and reflections and advice for CEOs working with board chairs.
Robin Snidow: Well, you’re right. We do have a very close relationship and it’s intentional. I mean, I will say I hired Dimple, and from the beginning, I only wanted to do that once and I wanted it to be right and it has been right, but we really had the full intention of getting to know each other in the beginning, talking constantly and sharing our experiences and expectations and struggles, and we built that into our working relationship, we connected often.
My advice to other people, and I’ve shared this is, put it on the calendar and share whatever you need to share. You don’t have to have a crisis to all of a sudden go to your board chair. It can be something simple, but what you’re doing is you’re building the muscle around how you build your relationship between the two of you. And sure, we’ve had a few crisises along the way, and we’ve been able to navigate those. But we also, when we talk, we check in about our families and we check in about the weather and we check in about other things too. So we’ve really built a friendship as well as a partnership.
And that’s something that the board and staff feel and they really trust us, and I think going back to the spending and the spending policy and the things that we bring to the board, they know that they’ve gone through the sieve of Robin and Dimple probably over and over again, and they can trust that there was good decision making around those things. So, from my perspective as a board chair, it makes things a lot more seamless, because I don’t have a board that’s second guessing what we’re doing.
Dimple Abichandani: If I were giving advice to a pear CEO, what I would say is, it’s the partnership that makes all the work possible. Right? That I move in alignment with my board, but that’s because we have a structure to support that alignment. And that structure is my working relationship with Robin. I think we’ve both prioritized and nurtured a really strong working relationship. So the things that we all know as human beings about like what makes a strong relationship, that’s true for a relationship like this one. Right? Like you build trust, and you build trust by being trustworthy. Right?
As you build a relationship, I mean, I think one thing that I really value about our relationship is, we have built in space to see things from different perspectives, and that can be hard. It can be hard to disagree or to have a different take on something, but what is it that allows for that? It’s respect. Right? It’s respect, it’s trust. And so, those things really serve as. I mean, I always give credit to Robin for the fact that we have our spending policy, because it was like months of convincing Robin that this could work. And when she pushed back on different pieces of it, I never took it as like Robin is saying that my idea is wrong or sucks, it’s like it was a good process.
It was a healthy back and forth that made the work stronger, and that’s what the board counts on, the board knows that we’re both grownups with one another. Right? And then the surprise of it, or the gifts of it is, when I took this job at GSF, I didn’t know that packed into this big job, I was like, “It was a friendship.”
Nick Tedesco: I’d love to hear from each of you about what your hope is for the foundation and, or family philanthropy as we look ahead. Robin, why don’t we start with you?
Robin Snidow: Sure. Well, I’ll take the foundation piece. I think back to the letter, and that was my great grandfather who wrote it, and the closing paragraph, he talks about enjoying association with one another. And that has meant a lot to us, as well as all the other nuances that are in the letter. One of my hopes for the foundation is that it can continue on through next generations, and I know there’s pushback now on family wealth remaining with families and not giving out more, which we continue to try and give out more.
But I think what I deeply, deeply understands is the relationships that we have built as a family, and how that’s impacted our lives. So the ripple effects of the association with one another to say nothing of the learning that we get to do from Dimple and the rest of our staff and our colleagues and grantees, it’s not measurable in dollars, but I know everyone on our board takes what they’ve learned at GSF and has made them stronger in their communities, more generous with their talents and dollars. So, you can’t measure that, but I know it’s important. I appreciate the association with one another and the learning.
That’s one of my hopes. And of course, I mean, I would love for us to go out of business because we aren’t needed any longer because between government and society, we are caring for each other and everyone has enough and are able to live a fulfilled life. So that’s my real help, but I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon. So I hope we can just continue doing really innovative work and not just pushing ourselves, but pushing our colleagues to be better and continue our learning as an organization.
Nick Tedesco: Dimple.
Dimple Abichandani: I think I’m going to share my hopes for our sector. We are in this really interesting moment where in the 20 years that I’ve known philanthropy, we’ve never changed as rapidly and as much as we did this last year. Right? And we’ve seen two different kinds of changes that I think are really important. One is, there has been a real shift in the how of grant making and underneath that, a real grappling with how do we share power as funders.
Dimple Abichandani: Then there’s been a shift in what is funded and who is funded, and in particular, coming out of George Floyd last year and the racial reckoning, there has been a new commitment to racial justice. My hope for philanthropy is that all of these changes are durable. That they’re the beginning and not the end, and that we take those leaps forward, that many institutions made last year, and that we do the work to institutionalize and deeply, deeply integrate all those changes.
So that an institution that maybe made a big commitment to racial equity last year, racial justice, but had never done so before, like my hope is that they’re doing the internal work right now to really realize that. And if we can do that, then I think we will be on the path towards the second part of Robin’s vision. Like that is what it’s going to take for us to put ourselves out of business.
Nick Tedesco: Well, it’s been such a joy to spend time with the both of you, and I just thank you for your time and your insight and wisdom, and really look forward to continuing to watch the work of GSF. And again, just really appreciate your time, and thank you for being here. This was a lot of fun.
Dimple Abichandani: Thank you so much.
Robin Snidow: Thank you so much, Nick.