Resilience in the future funding landscape

Speakers

Libby Barrett – Senior Investment Director, Rathbones

Emma de Closset – Chief Executive, UK Community Foundations

Alison Taylor – CEO, CAF Bank & CFSL

Transcript

Libby: Welcome, and thank you for joining today’s Rathbones Charity Expert Series, focusing on resilience in the future funding landscape. Charities are operating in an increasingly challenging funding environment. We’ve got rising demand, sustained cost pressures, and real uncertainty around public funding and market conditions. Today’s session will explore how organisations can respond to that, how they balance immediate financial pressures with long-term sustainability, and what financial resilience really looks like in practice. I’m delighted to be joined by an excellent panel. Emma de Closset is Chief Executive of UK Community Foundations and brings deep insight into the evolving funding landscape. Alison Taylor is CEO of CAF Bank & CFSL and brings extensive experience supporting charities on financial management and funding strategy. I’m Libby Barrett, a Senior Investment Director at Rathbones, and I’ll be chairing today’s session. We encourage you to submit questions throughout the session using the ‘Ask a question’ function on your screen, and we’ll aim to answer as many as we can during the Q&A at the end. With that, let’s begin by setting the scene. Emma, I’ll start with you. From your perspective, what do you think has changed most in the funding landscape over the last three to five years, and what’s likely to persist?

Emma: Thanks, Libby. Before jumping into what the data is telling us, it’s important to stress the diversity of this sector. We have some absolutely huge national actors at one end of the scale, micro-organisations at the other, and everything in between. They have very different experiences, and sometimes the experiences of the largest can obscure what’s going on for the smallest. That’s why, during this discussion, I want to refer to the Third Sector Trends Report throughout, with credit to Professor Tony Chapman and the partners who made his report possible, notably Community Foundation North East and Lloyds Bank Foundation. It focuses exclusively on what’s going on for charities with income of £25 million or less – 99% of the sector – and it reveals a lot of diversity in what’s happening. That’s important because national statistics can sometimes obscure as much as they reveal. I’m going to use that report to guide what I think is happening. 

What does the report tell us? I think the first thing it says is that grants are now perceived as the most valuable source of income. Since 2019, there’s been a 10 percentage point increase in how important grants are to charities. Alongside that, we’ve seen evidence of a shift in funder practice. We have 56% of those organisations reporting receipt of unrestricted or core funding in 2025, compared to 46% in 2019. And 40% report longer-term investment, compared to 31% before the pandemic. Now, that is set against a really interesting trend over the last few years which stands out to me in the context of the government’s efforts in this area, which is that there’s been a noticeable drop in the perceived value of delivering public services. At a summit I attended this morning, attendees really stopped to notice that philanthropy has now overtaken government funding. Stepping back from that report, the two other observations I’d make about the funding landscape are, first, a new and encouraging emphasis on place, most recently highlighted in Our Place to Give, the government’s plan for place-based philanthropy in England. From a UK Community Foundations perspective, this is very welcome, and community foundations across the country will play their part in helping people give back to their roots. Finally, in terms of public generosity, I’d highlight the shift from many people giving a bit to fewer people giving a bit more. The Charities Aid Foundation has really interesting data on that, which I’m sure Alison will touch on in the discussion.

Libby: Thank you. Alison, is there anything you would add on that? From what you’re seeing, are there income streams which are proving most resilient in the current environment? Are there some which are becoming less reliable?

Alison: Thank you. To pick up, as Emma kindly mentioned, the CAF research on giving – I think it is absolutely the case that there has been an ongoing trend of fewer people giving regularly. We have lost about six million donors across the last decade. We carry out that research every year, and that is the picture it shows. It is true that, although there were fewer people giving, we were seeing higher levels of gifting. But last year, 2025, was the first year that that trend didn’t continue. Total giving in the UK was £14 billion versus £15.4 billion in 2024, so pretty much a 10% drop, which is clearly significant. Despite that rather worrying picture, we would still say that individual giving, particularly regular direct debit giving, is a resilient stream. The challenge is that, at a higher level of inflation, the value of older direct debits is being eroded quite rapidly, and it’s difficult for charities, given the affordability issues that exist, to keep pushing to increase direct debits. But it is still a fundamental and resilient stream. Grants are also resilient, but I do think there’s quite variable experience from grant funding. Everybody knows a lot of foundations have pulled up the drawbridge on new applications, slightly overwhelmed, and I think there has been much more variability in giving through a lot of grant schemes than we’ve perhaps seen in previous years. I would absolutely agree with what Emma said from a government funding perspective. Anyone providing services under government contracts has experienced some real challenges. When you look at the trading income side, a very variable picture emerges, particularly from a shops perspective, where costs have tended to go through the roof. I think a lot of charities are finding that they are getting less good-quality product donated to them than perhaps they were. So it is quite a mixed picture. One of the areas that is doing well, though, is legacy income. We’ve seen some real significant growth from a legacies perspective, and many charities are experiencing success with that.

Libby: I guess, on that point, legacy donations and income are harder to account for. When charities are thinking about their budgets and their income streams, how can they think about diversifying those income streams?

Alison: I think diversification of income streams is obviously really important for all charities. The challenge at the moment is balancing how we maximise income right now, at a time when that probably feels like the burning question for many, with also investing in fundraising capability for the future. That’s where both the legacies piece and, if you have a trading arm, future-proofing that, future-proofing fundraising strategy and direct donor engagement for next-generation donors become important. These donors often have very different ways of thinking about charitable giving and different expectations of how they want to engage with charities. Unfortunately, we are at a point where there’s a need to invest in the digital experience, but also in the thinking behind how we report impact for next-generation donors and how we engage with them in a way that makes them long-term, loyal donors in future. So it is challenging, but most of the charities we are engaged with in any kind of advisory capacity are very much advocating for that investment in future fundraising wherever possible. There definitely is a shift in the fundraising experience that is needed. Much as it is tempting to focus on maximising income now, that is only part of the picture.

Libby: Emma, is that something you’re finding as well? Is there anything you’d add on that?

Emma: Yes, I think that’s right. I would just add that, in a lot of the national conversations I’m in about diversification – particularly with a lot of the impact economy narrative at the moment – there’s a lot of consideration about what is the role for philanthropy versus impact investment versus working with businesses. But for a lot of charities on the ground, some of those things feel quite far out of reach. I think there’s a bit of bridging required if government and others are really serious about using impact investment to support charities and move off a grant-led model. There is capacity building and engagement that needs to happen to enable that. It’s not going to happen on its own.

Libby: Another potential income stream, which can be more reliable, is from a charity’s reserves, should they be fortunate enough to have some. Are we seeing a shift in how charities think about reserves – perhaps moving from thinking of them as a safety buffer to something that’s more strategic? Emma, I’ll pass that over to you.

Emma: Sure. I think this is one where being quite precise is helpful, because clearly the answer to that question is going to be very different for a £25 million organisation versus one that is operating with a budget in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. If I look at the data in that Third Sector Trends Report, we know that 82% of those organisations that participated have reserves. That rises to 97% among the biggest organisations and falls to 71% among the smallest. There are also differences in how those reserves are being used. Some 45% didn’t draw on their reserves last year, so that core function as a safety buffer is clearly very much in place for those organisations. But over a quarter of the organisations have had to use their reserves for essential purposes – wages, rent, the running costs of the organisation. I don’t think that points to the strategic use of reserves in the way you’re suggesting. That points to reserves as survival, and that is particularly the case in the poorest areas of the country. We see that less in more affluent areas, which of course is intuitive. Across all the size categories, 16% have invested reserves in new activities. That does speak a bit more to what you were saying there, Libby, about being strategic, and that is a bigger proportion of the largest organisations – 35% of them – who are starting to use their reserves to invest in new things and explore new directions. So I think it’s a really mixed picture. I’d be very wary of trying to put an overarching narrative around that. Things are clearly still really tough for a lot of organisations. Lots of them don’t have the level of reserves that would be required to be strategic with them, but we are seeing that increase in some of the bigger organisations that are surveyed.

Libby: Alison, is that something you’re experiencing as well?

Alison: Yes, absolutely. I think the important thing, when we think about reserves policy, is to be quite practical and think about what is right for a particular organisation. If you wind back to the pre-COVID era, I think the received wisdom was that best practice was to have around a month of operating costs and that it was inefficient to be holding higher levels of reserves. You should be putting your funding to work, and so on. Much of the guidance tended in that direction. Then I think what COVID showed us is that this led many to being ill-prepared and insufficiently resilient for a shock of the magnitude of COVID. We all hope that’s a once-in-a-lifetime experience, but it might not be. A sensible level of reserves is going to depend on your cost base. If you have a mostly floating and easy-to-switch-on-and-off cost base, then a month of operating costs – while it still feels low to me – might be acceptable. But for most of us, we would want much more like three to six months, I think, to be covered. If you’re going to do that, and if you have the luxury of holding reserves for the genuinely longer term, then what is most worrying at the moment is how we protect our investments against inflation. The way we tend to look at that, and advise people, is to think about what you need to have readily available in case of an urgent short-term shock, what you could have in a slightly longer deposit pot that you could access on a three- to six-month basis, and then what you can really invest for the longer term. At that point, you might be looking at a more sophisticated investment strategy. But there is a lot available out there, I think, to manage and protect against inflation. We’ve certainly seen a number of housing association clients of ours do that particularly well. Even if they’ve not wanted to go down a full investment route, they’ve certainly used deposit products to manage that well.

Libby: For those charities who do have a pot that they can set aside for longer-term investments, what role can those portfolios play in providing a predictable income stream? Alison, do you think there are any trade-offs that charities need to consider in that?

Alison: I think it can be a predictable income stream, but equally it is, by definition, going to be prone to shocks. It’s got to be part of an overall balanced approach. If you’re going to have an investment portfolio, it’s important to make sure that it mirrors the ethos of your charity and that, whether you’re formally in ESG funds or otherwise, you are clear-sighted about where your money is at work. I think donors are increasingly vigilant about that now, and particularly corporate donors as well. So we do have to think about that.

Libby: Certainly for our clients, one of the key trade-offs is making sure that, if you are drawing down from your investments, the overall returns can be unpredictable. So it’s about deciding on a drawdown rate that is sustainable over the long term, so you can balance your more immediate needs with protecting capital for the long term. Do you have any advice for charities on how they can balance those two conflicting needs? Alison, I’ll direct that back to you.

Alison: I think that really comes down to good financial planning and forecasting ability, because it’s quite hard to get that exactly balanced. The main thing is that everybody is clear-eyed about the strategy going into an investment approach, and that it is transparent across trustees as well. It’s an area that’s often not very well understood within a charity’s finances, so the governance around it is really important at that point.

Libby: Emma, you’ve already spoken about how philanthropy has now overtaken government funding. One of the additional uncertainties that charities have to contend with at the moment is public funding and policy uncertainty. How can charities plan when those directions remain uncertain? Do you have any advice for what good scenario planning can look like?

Emma: It’s the million-dollar question. I probably don’t have gold-plated advice for that. But it has been an incredibly volatile 10 years from a political perspective in this country, so charities listening will have had at least a decade of navigating that type of uncertainty and volatility. Their exposure to it will really depend on how closely they work with government, but we all know that policy decisions in government, even if you don’t hold a public sector contract, can really affect your day-to-day life as a charity. So I think staying abreast of what’s going on is always important, but none of us has a crystal ball. There is an element – returning to the theme of the conversation earlier – of diversifying what you’re doing if you are dependent on government contracts, because those look increasingly uncertain in the years ahead, both in terms of public sector spending being squeezed and potential political developments that may not be favourable at local government level. I think everybody is navigating that as best they can, and really there’s not much more you can do than arm yourself with a bit of knowledge about what’s going on and try to assess risk as much as possible.

Libby: Do either of you have any advice for strategy planning or scenario planning over and above government funding?

Emma: As a former civil servant who worked at the heart of government in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office, I think what I would always advise any organisation – whether that’s a charity or a business – to think about when they’re working with government and trying to plan for the future is that engaging with ministers and MPs is one part of the picture, and a very important part, but engaging with the permanent officials who serve the government of the day, and will serve the next government in future, is also a really important part of that engagement strategy. I think that would be something I’d add into the mix.

Alison: I think that’s right. Actually, probably as with all scenario planning, it is about thinking broadly enough. That’s often where we can fall down. We tend to sensitise our thinking by quite small percentages and then, when bigger challenges land or fundamental policy changes come through, we’re not prepared for something of that scale. So I think sometimes the onus is on us to think a bit bigger, think the unthinkable, and then ask what we would actually do to deal with it.

Emma: If I could just build on that, Libby, I really agree, because there’s a whole army of scenario planners doing exactly that for government when they look at macroeconomic events or global events. We are being affected by events that are happening far beyond the shores of the UK at the moment. So rather than trying to predict exactly what will happen, I think having scenarios for different levels of pressure, different levels of cost increases or funding squeezes, feels more valuable and more important as an activity than trying to predict what will happen politically.

Libby: Moving on to governance, Alison, what does strong financial governance look like in this environment? Based on your experience, what do you think boards are doing differently?

Alison: I think what it looks like at the moment is exactly what we were just talking about. It is being prepared for big events and big changes. In this environment, there is an onus on boards to really challenge across the organisation for changes – whether that is cost pressures, reducing income, or global issues like the energy cost shocks we have had, or interest rate changes. It is about thinking about those in a large way and having a detailed response to what you would actually do. I think that means getting down to the level of, if that happens, these are the cost areas we would be looking to reduce and this is how we would go about it. It means really looking at what service changes could be made. These are really difficult conversations. They have far-reaching impact, so having them in the heat of the moment when everyone is under immense pressure is not ideal. Having planned for them with a cooler head, in a board discussion, is probably a lot more effective. One of the things – obviously CAF Bank is situated in the heart of the charity sector, but it is still a bank and operates within the same financial services regulatory environment – is that, since the financial crash of 2008, regulation has genuinely forced us to look at what happens if the unthinkable happens. If you are in a winding-up-your-organisation situation, or you are having to look at a merger or a resolution, whatever the end point is, you actually have a detailed plan of how you would go about that. I hope that doesn’t sound defeatist. It is actually quite reassuring, I think, to be forced to think about those sorts of existential threats and know what process you would go through if you were in that situation. For some charities providing fundamentally critical services, I don’t think that is a bad discipline – to know where you might go if you were to be in that situation. That leads into thinking about merger options as well, as part of that planning, because we have definitely seen an increase. It’s still not enormous numbers, but again, knowing and being able to do some of the thinking at a time when you don’t have a gun to your head and you’re not up against a timeline is hugely beneficial. So my board advice is really to be thinking about the big risks, not just the small ones, and the big scenarios that you may or may not face.

Libby: I think that’s very good advice. Emma, continuing on with practical actions, if you were advising charity leadership today, what practical steps would you suggest they take to help strengthen financial resilience?

Emma: Thank you. I’ve been in this job for about 18 months and, in that time, I have travelled as much of the country as I could manage in between other commitments. I have met charity leaders, particularly of small grassroots charities – the kind that community foundations fund every day. Before presuming to offer any advice, I would just recognise the ingenuity and resilience of that group. I’m here representing a group of funders. Alison is representing CAF Bank. We’re not in the trenches. I want to be clear about that before offering a few observations rather than advice. First, picking up on something Alison said earlier, the temptation, particularly when things are difficult, is to reach for any funding that you can grab hold of in the moment. But my observation is that there is sometimes an opportunity cost to that. Sometimes the right thing is to leave money on the table if it is coming with burdens, restrictions and reporting that you can’t service properly, or if it is costing you more to deliver than you are being paid to do. The opportunity cost of saying yes to that kind of funding might mean that you are not in a position to develop a relationship with a more progressive funder – one who might be more aligned with IVAR principles, for example. So I would urge leaders to have that in mind as they work through difficult decisions about what to pursue and what to leave to one side. The second thing, and I experienced this when I joined the sector from government, is that hope isn’t a strategy. There are lots of dependencies that come up in financial forecasts. That’s normal across every sector. But if you are reliant on an income stream coming through, then your activity as an organisation should reflect that. I’ve heard things like, “Well, the ball’s in their court”, about something that would be really material to the financial health of that organisation. If it is something that you depend on, you have to act like it and not wait for others to hold your destiny in their hands. I’ve definitely seen a few examples of that since joining the sector. Finally, picking up on what Alison was saying about mergers and thinking through potential closures, there are resources out there for leaders who are struggling. There is support available for people who are looking at their books and wondering how they are going to make ends meet. If there is anyone listening to this webinar who is in that category, the organisation I would recommend they reach out to is the Decelerator, which can have confidential discussions and help work through what’s going on. They would probably say that a merger quite often isn’t the answer, but there are lots of things worth exploring. So I think knowing that you’re not alone and that there are resources out there if you’re in a really tough spot is a helpful thing to recognise.

Libby: That’s very helpful. On that point as well, are there any common mistakes that you’re seeing charities make when they’re responding to funding pressures, and any advice on avoiding those? Emma, I’ll pass that back to you.

Emma: From my vantage point, I’m not seeing a catalogue of mistakes. I know from talking to other funders that all sorts of advice is given about really making sure that you understand who you are applying for funding from and not being too general. AI is probably the only one that really jumps out to me – making sure that, in using the very helpful and productive artificial intelligence tools available, you’re not inadvertently weakening your pitch and value proposition. I think we’re seeing applications that feel more generic in nature and are not doing full justice to the charities submitting them. So it’s about being really thoughtful about how those tools are used to support your operations and not allowing them to get in the way of getting across your mission in an authentic way. That’s probably the main one that comes to mind.

Alison: I would definitely second Emma’s point there on the use of AI. It can be brilliant, but I do think that increasing numbers of foundations and grant-makers are a bit turned off by it. It’s a starting point, but it’s probably not the end point of what it produces. It needs human input, perhaps after a bit of heavy lifting from AI in the first place. Otherwise, there’s nothing else I’d add to that.

Libby: One final question from me before I pass over to the Q&A. Looking ahead over the next three to five years, what do you think will define a financially resilient charity, and how might that look different from today? Alison, I’ll direct this to you, and then Emma, if you could add on afterwards.

Alison: Great question. In terms of the key aspects I think of from a resilience perspective, there’s probably no rocket science here: a strong and clear reserves policy that is maintaining its value; liquidity, and the ability to understand the liquidity needs of the next two to three months and cover those; diversification of income streams, with an understanding of what is predictable and what is not; discipline around forward planning and scenario planning, including the really tough, larger scenarios; and the ability to be reasonably agile in response. Agility is probably one of the big challenges boards experience. When something starts to happen, starts to crystallise and starts to come over the horizon as a risk, how quickly are you able to assess that risk, think about your response to it, and then actually put it into action? Agility is an increasing need. As we look ahead, there are also fundamental changes going on around philanthropy and corporate attitudes towards charities and gifting strategy. I think the charities that will really thrive in that timeframe will be the ones that do the best job of responding to that change and can really engage with those donors in a meaningful way that makes them their donor base for the long term. There’s going to be more competition for both corporate and high-net-worth philanthropy in particular. Understanding how people are changing their thinking around that, and what you need to present as a charity in order to be one of the successful organisations that captures it, will be the real differentiator.

Emma: That’s really solid advice. I agree with a lot of that. What I was reflecting on is that we’ve really focused this discussion on what charities can be doing, what charities should be doing, and what advice we should give to charities. But for me there is also a question here about funder behaviour – whether that’s ultra-high-net-worth philanthropists, corporates or foundations. What is the role for funders in creating the conditions for charities to become more resilient and to put all of those great things into practice? That is what I would like to see over the next five years – much more thought and intent behind how you can do more than just fund a programme, and really think through how you can support this organisation to be resilient and to deliver these services and run these operations over many years, rather than popping in and out to fund specific bits of activity. If you are navigating capital that is restricted – whether that is coming from an individual, government, a corporate or a foundation – it is really hard to do all of the things we’ve been talking about. So I think continuing that shift to unrestricted funding, a recognition that core costs also need to be covered, and that those relationships need to be multi-year, will make the biggest difference in the years ahead. Certainly, from a UK Community Foundations perspective, that’s absolutely something that we see as part of our role – trying to help make that happen.

Libby: Brilliant. Thank you. We’ll now move on to the Q&A section. Thank you to those of you who have already submitted questions, but please do continue to send them through. You should be able to see the Q&A function on the right-hand side of the screen – or at least that’s where it appears for me. Having a look at the questions we’ve got here, the first one is: Alison mentioned an increase in legacy giving. Is this the same for larger charities as it is for smaller or micro-charities, taking into account the spectrum of charities that Emma alluded to when setting the context?

Alison: I can’t give an absolute data-driven answer to that, unfortunately, but I can say quite strongly that I think it is a bigger factor for medium-sized and larger charities than it is for small ones. The only thing I would say, though, is that increasingly smaller charities are also capturing legacy opportunities if they’ve got really connected donors. One of the things, touching on something we talked about right at the beginning, is around the place-based giving agenda, which is proving very successful for many. Those are often the scenarios that result in lifetime giving and indeed legacy giving at the end of it. So it isn’t just a medium- and larger-charity issue – or opportunity, rather.

Libby: We have another question here, Alison, which I think you covered quite a bit earlier. We were talking about reserve levels and the fact that one month might be shown to be too little for many organisations, though obviously it depends on the type of organisation and how quickly you can turn off your outflows or adjust your expenditure. Is there a level of reserves that you would recommend? I appreciate it varies very much by organisation.

Alison: There isn’t a single level for that reason, because I genuinely think it is different for every organisation. But the recommendation is really to try to do the financial analysis to show what you think you need to have on hand. If I had to put a number on it, I think anything less than three months feels quite daring to me. Maybe I’m quite conservative about these things – I’m an accountant by background – but it feels to me as though you need time to recognise that you’ve got a challenge, think about what you want to do in response to it, and then actually enact it. A month doesn’t feel very long, regardless of the shape of your cost base, to achieve that.

Libby: Emma, one for you. Small charities may not have access to the level of financial expertise on the board that is required for the kind of financial analysis and risk planning we’ve discussed. Do you have any tips on how to leverage this expertise, or how to access it if it isn’t already on your board?

Emma: Again, if you don’t have it on your board, it’s about making use of the resources available through support networks, whether that’s NCVO, Decelerator and other partners like that. It is a real challenge. I know that small charities in particular can find it really difficult to get access to the kind of expertise they need. One thing that could be helpful nationally is supporting corporate volunteering and connecting people who work in financial professions in London, who are keen to give back and might be open to a trustee role at a smaller charity, perhaps in the place where they grew up. I’ll have to come back to you on the names of the organisations, but there are networks that exist to do exactly that sort of matching, where they take partners and directors of big firms who are keen to take on a trustee role and help them find a suitable position. So have a look for those.

Alison: Yes, please do follow up. Sorry – I think Charity Finance Group is a good place to look for that support.

Libby: Definitely. I know it’s definitely something that the members on our charities team do a lot of. Most of us are trustees ourselves, so I think that’s definitely an important and useful resource. So yes, Charity Finance Group is a good one. Emma, if you think of another link, then do let us know. Another question here: are there any savings accounts for charities that you would recommend to ensure that we are generating a reasonable rate of interest on reserves while keeping them reasonably accessible? Alison, I’ll start with you.

Alison: I’m going to be in danger of being self-promoting at this point. A product that I will mention is that we have a charity deposit platform, and charities can onboard to that and then access a whole range of different bank savings products. You only have to onboard once, and you can then move between different banks and different products. You have access to multiple FSCS protection levels, and there will be a whole range of different term deposits and different rates on there. If anyone has a personal Raisin account, for example, it works in a very similar way. That helps navigate the ebbs and flows of savings rates that all banks offer. That’s a natural part of banking – they change their rates depending on what outcomes they’re trying to achieve for their balance sheet. But this enables you to take the best products quickly without it being particularly onerous, and I think that has proved an immensely popular product with a lot of charities. It is worth a look. Otherwise, most of the ethical banks will offer higher rates than the high street banks, for sure. So it is definitely worth looking at that and, at least then, you know you are also supporting the broader sector, which is a good thing.

Libby: Thanks, Alison. One question here which maybe I’ll answer in the first instance: do you see a need for charities to adjust their investment portfolio due to recent geopolitical events, or do you think the long-term picture is more important for resilience? There’s definitely been a lot going on in markets of late, but geopolitical events and market drawdowns are not uncommon. They seem to happen in most years, and I think focusing on that long-term picture and your long-term objectives is definitely the more important one. Hopefully, when you set up your investment portfolio, you have taken the time with your investment manager to agree what your investment time horizon is and what your capital drawdown or income needs are. So, if you do have a long-term time horizon when it comes to your investments, often the right thing to do is stay invested, ride out the volatility, and not make any knee-jerk reactions or sell all your investments at a point where markets are low. But you should hope and expect that your investment manager will be making adjustments to your portfolio within the parameters of the investment strategy you’ve agreed, to help manage the portfolio in light of the geopolitical backdrop and help protect it where possible. Focusing on the long-term picture, sticking to your investment strategy, and reminding yourself of your long-term investment objectives is definitely the most important thing. I think that’s it for questions. Someone asked whether the session is being recorded, and yes, it is being recorded. I think you should receive an email after this which sends you the recording. With that, I think that brings us to the end of today’s session. Thank you, Emma and Alison, for sharing your insights, and thank you to everyone who has joined and submitted questions. I hope you have found the discussion useful and that it has given you some practical ideas to take back to your organisations as you think about financial resilience in the years ahead. I’ve definitely learned a lot, so thank you, Alison and Emma. There is something that has just popped up at the bottom if you want to sign up to the next webinar. Another thing to note is that you will also be sent a survey after today, which we’d be grateful if you could complete. We value your feedback. On the right-hand side of your screen there is also a resources tab, so you can download some helpful information there as well. So thank you, all of you, for being part of the Rathbones Charity Expert Series. We look forward to seeing you at future sessions. With that, goodbye, and I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

Alison: Thank you.

Emma: Thanks.