Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. I very much regret I haven't been able to attend the conference so far, but I hope this policy panel adds extra value. So I think we have a very nice range of perspectives on the panel. And in the preparation for this panel, we asked the panel to take some combination of the following questions. One is the appropriate role for the counter-sictical capital buffer. Two is what is needed for effective macroprudential regulation for banks and for non-banks. The third topic is the any possible interactions between monetary policy and macroprudential policy. And then the fourth dimension is the analytics of cross-border spillovers of macroprudential policy. Now, I think each of the panel members will focus in on particular dimensions of those questions and I will first of all turn to Anil. So, Anil? Okay. I'm sorry, seven minutes is the rule. Yeah. You're going to regret those 11 slides, Vitor. Yeah, I cannot. Yeah, I can do it from here. All right, well, thank you for having me. And, okay, so I did not coordinate with Jeremy, but my message is going to sit well with what you just heard. So, given that we've got seven minutes, I'm just going to try to make one point, which is let's walk through the thought experiment and just ask ourselves if we were lucky enough to have the crisis play out like it did last time, which I'm going to argue is probably not super representative. But just suppose we did, could we have used the CCYB, the counter-sictical capital buffer, to build up all the extra capital that we would have needed? And I'm just going to lay out the argument by showing it's pretty straightforward to do a calculation about how much that would have required ballpark. Let's look at what the indicators looked like when you were sitting there doing the job Kristen was talking about. Imagine you're the macro-proof committee and this is what you're getting. And then let's think about whether it's realistic that you would have done what it takes. Okay, so this is from a paper that I and some colleagues, and I should say I'm not speaking for the Bank of England here. So when Mark shows up later today for Ben Wasthing, you can't go running him and say, Cashup said the Bank of England. No, no, no, no, this is just me. So the paper I'm going to draw from here was something that I did with some colleagues at the Bank of England trying to just look back at the last crisis and say, you know, could macro-proof have worked? And at the core of the macro-proof toolkit is this time-varying level of capital that's importantly a buffer that can be built up in good times and then released in bad. And what we did in that paper was try to come up with an estimate of how much capital you would have needed. Now this is not rocket science, but you can just look at the ex-post outcomes and say that would give you a sense. So if you were to say the turning point was the tarp, the targeted asset purchases that were done where they bought bank equity, the amount that was injected in the U.S. was about $200 billion. If you compare that to risk-weighted assets, that gets you a number once you correct for the percentage of domestic risk-weighted assets of about a 3% increase in capital. If you say, well, that wasn't really sufficient, the turning point was right after the stress test when we announced that the banks would have to go out and raise capital, they raised about $70 billion right away. That would get you to a number that's more like 4.2%. If you decided instead that we're going to do a calculation that just said let's keep the economy on its growth path and ask ourselves how much extra lending would you have thought had to be needed there? You get to a number like 4.7. So I'm going to take Ball Park, a number somewhere between 4 and 5% is how much we would have needed. Now, turns out David along with some colleagues, Aikman along with some colleagues at the Federal Reserve when he was visiting there did an exercise like this. And you should not be surprised that it's pretty challenging. We have this large literature on early warning signs that point out just how difficult it is to forecast crises. What they did was the kind of exercise that I think most central banks would tend to do, which is take a bunch of financial indicators, locate the variables in their own historical distribution. When they're at the high end of the distribution, you color it red. When they're the low end, you do green. And then just ask yourself what the distribution would have looked like for the United States. And one of the points they make is depending on what exactly you're looking at and when you're looking at it, you'll get very different indicators as to how many things were flashing red. And one of the problems with all of this, of course, is that you're probably not going to be sure. And the way that the counter-cyclical capital buffer works is to say once you make a decision, banks have a year to raise the level of capital. We do that because we don't want them to have to go issue equity immediately.  But that means what Jeremy was saying was all the more important. Even if Don Cohn had had it exactly right in 2004, what he did with the CCYB would only be enacted a year later. So imagine you're starting out at a resting point of 1% or zero in the U.S. and then ask yourselves how many bytes of the app are you going to have to get the CCYB up to four and you're going to come away pretty pessimistic. Now, some of this thinking informed discussions in the U.K. So if you looked at the financial stability report that the BOE, the financial policy put out yesterday, we changed the resting place for the CCYB in the U.K. from 1% to 2%, precisely so that you don't have to have such a steep gradient. Now, even with a resting point of 2%, I still think it will be challenging. And I think there's three reasons why this is going to be hard. The first is, in most central banks, in most countries, a stress test is at the core of how you decide if you need more capital. There's a nice paper that Don and Don Cohn and Nellie Lang wrote last summer for a Fed conference where they tried to see how is it that you can get a stress test to show you that you need a lot more capital. And what they point out is it's just very difficult to get these things to become particularly counter-cyclical. It's easy to see a gap, but to get the gaps to move around is pretty hard. The second thing is I think the last crisis was a little special in the sense that everything kind of was going wrong. There weren't any macro prude committees putting their feet on the brakes to slow down things. And so it's almost certain that the next time around you're not going to have a situation where every indicator is in the upper quartile of its distribution. You're probably going to have to have judgment. You're probably going to be in a situation where some things are flashing red and some aren't. And so if you think about, okay, let's suppose we needed to get to 4% or get 200 basis points more. It's going to involve taking some proactive decisions. And as Jeremy was talking about, that's not a bias that's built into the system. If anything, it's usually, well, let's wait one more quarter and see. And then the final thing is a shortage of theory, which is we still don't have a workhorse model that allows for multiple channels of instability. So if you think about most macro prude tools, they're either on the lender resilience side where you try to build up the resilience of the banks and ideally the shadow banks as well. Or you can get instability through the borrower side. Think about it. There's no baseline model that's used in every central bank where you've got both forms of instability in the model. So if you were to try to do something like, let's suppose we had a good model and we could simulate lots of times to just understand its properties to get a sense of what would you have to do instead of just looking back at that one crisis. Imagine I could run the world thousands of times and see what's the constellation of risks is it going to look like? Well, we don't even have a model to do that. So for all these reasons, I think it's going to be difficult to get the CCYB to be super proactive. And so I think setting it at a higher level is a good first step, but it's going to be challenging. Thank you, Anila, and also for being on time. So Vitor, over to you. Yes. Thank you. I need the command. So my intention was to address the first two questions that were put forward by the organizers, but I see that in seven minutes, even the first one will be difficult. And because I prepared 11 slides, so I will very likely skip the second point and we'll talk then first about the CCYB. And its use and possible effectiveness and how the policy problem now can be seen in Europe. Now, if we look to the situation where this is from the latest ECB financial stability review, showing that the very nice systemic risk indicator that the ECB has developed since 18 shows already some going up. But in spite of that, you have on the right that the CCYB corresponds to the almost invisible red bar in the capital situation of the banks. So hardly used. Only seven countries have some CCYB and some of them at 0.25 basis points. I mean the 25 basis points. So very low, hardly used. In spite of the fact that that would be now very helpful. Indeed, since 17 just to give you an idea, there were discussions at technical level suggesting that in Europe we should adopt the concept of a positive neutral level of CCYB in normal times. As the Bank of England did when they put at 1%. And that has many advantages, of course, that I listed there. It helps to overcome recognition and implementation lags, helps against type one errors of missing coming crisis, makes it easier for the gradualism of completing the build up. All that are advantages of having that neutral rate. That was very much rejected by most countries at the time. And now we see that if indeed some slowdown is coming, it would have been very useful to start to build up something earlier. And that's the policy problem that now we have in Europe with this. And especially now it would be convenient because monetary policy is obviously constrained. So to have these two would be important. But to really have these two would be to accept the idea that it would be useful to use it to release it when the crisis come. And that goes to the discussion about capital levels. If they should be higher, even when the crisis comes, they should be increased. Well, that would put into question these use of the CCYB. But my point on this is the following. We should not look only for capital ratios of capital over risk weighted assets or any other type. Because after a crisis or during the crisis, banks increase sometimes their capital ratio just by the leveraging. Because it's a ratio and not by increasing capital. So the indication from the Alan Taylor paper that saw that after the crisis there was a slight, very slight increase in the capital ratio may be just a result of the leveraging that comes out after a crisis. So it's not, can be misleading. What is important, I think, is that when the crisis comes, the banks are very well capitalized. And then part of that is used as a shock absorber. And to be a shock absorber, it has to be admitted that it has to be released. It has to be admitted initially that the capital goes down on that part that is contingent on having a crisis or not. And then after that first moment which is then helpful to avoid or mitigate a credit crunch, then it's time for recapitalization. But not on the peak at the time of the crisis itself. And we don't have that in Europe right now. But there is a problem with CCYB which is that many are skeptical about the use because they don't believe that will ever be any release of the CCYB. Why? For two reasons. First, micro supervisors are against it, deadly against it. They say that if a crisis is coming or has come, then you need more capital, not less. So no release. And if you release, they will increase people to things. And then it doesn't work. The other problem potentially is that markets may penalize in cost of funding if they see that in the crisis banks are indeed going down in their capital, although if that is endorsed explicitly and publicly by the authorities, that can be, I think, overcome. So it's important to have this. But reluctance of micro supervisors is a big problem. And we see these in Europe, as I put there, that whereas in the U.S., in the stress tests, in the adverse scenario, the threshold to have some action is in the tail risk, not that yet materialized, is say five percent capital threshold, common equity, in Europe is nine. Because if the banks come in the adverse scenario below nine, they are supposed to immediately increase capital. That shows the reluctance of using any concept of capital instruments to be released at the time of the crisis. And these uncertainties are indeed another argument to be in favor of preferred board with base methods of macro policy that don't face this uncertainty. Besides the fact that indeed borrowed base measures can be more effective in mitigating the boom than just some increase of capital as the paper by Alan Taylor, Shularik and Jarda shows, because it does not really improve the probability of not having a crisis just to have more capital. So it's not so much about mitigating the boom. It's because borrowed base are more effective, but it could be very useful if there is something to release. And then there is this conflict indeed between micro and macro potential, which is, I think, more acute than the conflict between monetary policy and macro potential policy in some situations. Although, nevertheless, in the Euro area, within the limits of the competence of the ECB, it is clear that it is the governing council of the ECB that is in the lead in terms of macro potential policy and should exert the arbitrage necessary between the two approaches and the two policies. Where in the UK is even more easier because it's the best institutional setup to deal with the different instruments that the central bank has at this disposal. Now, being this the policy problem, then how to improve the situation. One thought came from what the UK began to prepare and also in the US. In the September speech by Randall Quartz, there was this fine tuning of a proposal that had been presented for discussion by the Fed in 2018 saying, well, let's create a concept, a new concept of a stress capital buffer that would include the conservation capital buffer, possibly some degree of a CCYB if ever it is decided. And then the capital requirements coming from the stress tests, the CCYB, which then would deal in the same virtual buffer, both what comes from stress tests and what comes from other origins. And then the initial proposal was this would have to be a minimum of 2.5 which corresponds to the conservation capital buffer, which is no longer a buffer or was never a buffer perhaps. It's still written in Basel III that the conservation, the 2.5% of the capital conservation buffer, and I read it, is there to ensure that banks build up capital buffers outside periods of stress, which can be drawn down as losses are incurred. No, the conservation is not to be drawn down at all, which has only shows this reluctance of using the concept of buffers. So by putting a minimum of 3% in the proposal of quarrels in this speech, that would allow already the Fed to decide the 0.5 CCYB within that new concept. In Europe that could be achieved by creating the same sort of virtual new joint buffer of several things. In Europe we could also add up the systemic risk buffer to the end, of course very controversial, the pillar 2 guidance element. What happens in Europe is that there is a big pillar 2 requirement plus a guidance. And that makes a big thing. And that's used across the board to all banks. There is a sort of minimum 1% that has to be there for all banks, whereas pillar 2 was supposed to be idiosyncratic according to the specific risks of each bank. That's not what is being used for, is being used as a sort of margin of safety for the micro supervisors. That's how it is used. And then of course if that would be put into this more general concept of a stress capital buffer, then that would allow now to decide an increase in the CCYB, increasing the amount that could be released when and if the crisis comes. Thank you, Vitor. Next I turn to Alga. Yes, thank you very much. I will make some comments also on the interaction between monetary policy and macro-prudential policy and my remarks are quite general, so I don't need slides. But sort of the starting point of my premise would be that it really depends on the source of the financial imbalance that might be building up, whether or not monetary policy tools should be used to lean against such imbalances or whether financial tools micro and indeed macro are more likely to be effective. And I would argue that in the euro area it's much more likely than elsewhere that the financial imbalance are either specific to a sector, to a market segment or indeed an individual country because of the much more diverse nature of the financial system and more diverse cyclical developments at the country level. So you could argue that monetary policy therefore has a minor role to play only, but indeed I think there is a heightened risk that any financial imbalance local it might be could become a systemic. The reason is the still incomplete architecture of the economic and monetary union that could mean that even sort of a relatively contained or containable financial risk actually starts to blow through the financial system because we still have no complete banking union and are also still doing work on the capital market union and we clearly also don't have a sufficient fiscal backstop at this stage. Equally I think it is clear that macro-prudential policies are no panacea. In fact they could become another euro area coordination failure. I think it's reassuring that the ECB has additional powers to add to macro-prudential measures which we didn't have in the other elements where maybe Europe failed to coordinate. If you either think of the buildup of payments imbalances in the first 10 years of the euro or more recently maybe the imbalances that are building up on the fiscal policy side. But it's not clear that it will be enough because there are clearly material challenges that still remain. We have subdued bank profitability. We still are working through some of the legacy issues of the euro crisis. We still have major obstacles to cross-border consolidation and we're now facing deeply negative government bond yields potentially for an extended period of time which also have a corrosive effect. So why not use monetary policy then because it clearly as Jeremy has coined gets into all the cracks. I think the main problem in Europe is that monetary policy historically has been used to paper over all the cracks especially in the wake of the euro crisis. And as a result the ECB is today left with limited ammunition to deliver on its primary objective price stability. So I think that in the whole lean or clean debate unfortunately the ECB most likely will be able to do neither. It's very I think debatable on whether it could actually justify to lean against the wind in an environment where we're still far away from delivering on price stability and the December staff projections again showed that even at the end of 2022 we're not really where inflation should be. But also if we sort of look ahead and sort of look at the ability of the ECB potentially cleaning up after the event I think that might also be quite questionable given the limited amount of monetary policy ammunition that is still left. So in my view that means that in the next downturn or the next financial crisis what we actually need is a coordinated effort but it's a coordinated effort between monetary and fiscal policy and I do think that potential measures macro-prudential or micro-public have more of a side role to play. So what can the ECB do? I think it might be worth thinking as to whether there is a place to include euro area wide macro-financial dynamics more broadly in what has been its much criticized second pillar in the monetary policy strategy. So clearly it's more than just money and credit growth that needs to be looked at but I do think that the upcoming strategy review would be a great opportunity to revamp part of this analysis and to integrate financial developments much more obviously into monetary policy deliberation to the extent that they're relevant for the euro area as a whole. So for instance a broad-based financial conditions index that maybe reflects prices, sentiment and quantities. I'm still wondering by the way for any sort of smart researchers in the audience on whether there is a elegant way to link any FCI to financial vulnerabilities using the area below the FCI as the key measure for financial vulnerabilities because it basically gives you a measure of the how easy financial conditions were and how long there were this easy which I think is one of the key drivers of financial vulnerabilities. But anyway so I think the upcoming strategy review is an important way to integrate this and there is already some of this stuff happening. So just as an example the ECB has done some work and we have tried to replicate some of it and extend it further to basically include in any estimate of the equilibrium level of interest rate a concept of the financial cycle so that your equilibrium level of interest rates actually balances not just the economy at full employment and inflation at target but also stabilizes the financial system. And then as a result if you either have major upward or downward movement in the system wide leverage you would need to recalibrate your measure of our star and your judgment of your monetary policy stance. So that I think would be one way how you can bring the macro financial link into the mainstream. But to sum up I think being able to debate the pros and cons to coordinate monetary policy and macro-idential policy unfortunately is not that relevant for the ECB at the current juncture. It's what you could flippantly call it would be a high quality problem to have. Unfortunately the ECB at the current juncture can probably neither lean or clean but that's of course because it had to do some serious clean up work after the global financial crisis and the euro crisis that followed which makes it I think at the current juncture even more important that the prudential measures are delivering and making sure that the monetary policy transmission mechanism is fully functional to take the remaining policy ammunition when it is needed but I do think at the end of the day it probably needs to be paired up with fiscal policy to work. Okay thank you very much and then finally Hyun let me get your slides here. Thank you Philip. What I thought I'd do is to address the question on the link between financial stability and monetary policy but through the lens of capital markets and just pose a couple of issues that have cropped up recently. Imagine that you're in a within the border of country A and there are some investors who are lending to some borrowers and the color here is the currency and we know from some micro work and here's the majority at our paper that lenders tend to lend in their own currency so if they're lending to borrowers outside their jurisdiction they tend to lend in their own currency which means that if there are some borrowers within that jurisdiction that are borrowing from foreigners they tend to borrow in foreign currency but the exception is the US where everything is in dollars and here the color is green and here is one very interesting chart from their paper for Canada for Canadian corporate bond issuance so think of it like this. So horizontal axis is the domestic currency, foreign currency distinction so if you're to the left you tend to borrow in domestic currency Canadian dollars if you're to the right you borrow in foreign currency the vertical axis is the internal external distinction are you borrowing from residents or non-residents so if you're close to the bottom you're borrowing from residents if you're up there on the top you're borrowing from non-residents and you see this line just lining up exactly so if you're borrowing in Canadian dollars you tend to borrow from Canadian residents if you're borrowing from foreigners then you tend to borrow in foreign currency but this is the US where everyone borrows in their own currency which is the US dollar now why is this important? I think this is important because when we think about the hedging demand for borrowers one way to understand this particular pattern is that the liability side of the lender really looms into view if you're a pension fund or a life insurance company in country A your obligations are to your domestic policy holders or to the beneficiaries in your own currency and so you tend to gravitate towards claims that are in your own currency but of course if you can hedge then you can convert that exposure back into your own currency this is where the banks come in because the banks are the ones that provide most of these hedging services now why is this important for monetary policy? well the BIS recently published its Triennial Survey and the left-hand panel is giving you a sense of the currency counterpart to the dollar and the dollar is the dominant currency here 90% of swaps tend to have the dollar on one side of the transaction and these color schemes are vis-a-vis the other major currencies and then the gray is vis-a-vis the other currencies and think of this as basically the amount that's being rolled over in the swap market so the amount that's been invested in dollar denominated paper that would rather not be you would rather not be in dollars but you have to because that's the most liquid market that's the biggest market and so you're hedging it back to your own currency and most of it is actually very short term so you're rolling it over in a number of days rather than holding it to term and I'll come back to this shortly because this is going to be very important and if we look at the IMF CPIS we see for example in Japan when you look at the international portfolio the blue is the amount that's held in US dollars there's a bit in euros but the blue is the big part here's Switzerland where the euro part is bigger but the blue is again very large now why is this relevant? well here's where the banks come in and the banks have not been doing too well they have been very subdued if we look at the asset growth pre and post crisis what we see are these hockey stick diagrams where before the crisis and these are in lock scale so the slope is basically the annual growth of assets and the annual growth of book equity which is the blue we had roughly 15% annual growth rate in assets and book equity on the left hand panel here for the US banks these are the large US banks but then after the crisis we are flattening out so yes assets are growing but at a very subdued pace yes equity is growing faster but it's this very sharp hockey stick pattern in the euro area it's actually even more dramatic we actually see a declining assets and for other European banks we also see this hockey stick pattern now partly this is due to low profitability but if you look at the dividend payouts this is a topic that Jeremy mentioned earlier in his keynote the dividends have been pretty high as well and I think here we have to look at things like the book equity ratio the market to book ratio where it is the marginal return to the shareholders and just paying out equity can be higher if the market to book equity is below 1 so what this means is that there is a limited capacity for the banking sector to receive and absorb these hedging demands and one indication of this is the deviation from covered interest parity we've seen since the crisis focus on the blue line because this is the average of the deviation from covered interest parity of 10 major currencies and the sign convention is that if you're negative the dollar interest rate that's implicit in the FX swap market is higher than the dollar interest rate that's implicit in the money market and what you've seen is that even though we are well past the crisis we have this very limited ability of the banking sector to absorb these hedging demands now how can we interpret this the way that we can interpret this I think is that the demand for hedging has gone up and that's because long term rates are low there's a lot of reaching for yield among portfolio investors and there's a lot of international demand for dollar denominated securities but the supply of hedging services have declined because the banks are less able to absorb these hedging demands now it's true that central banks can inject liquidity and thereby at least preserve tranquility in the capital markets but occasionally we're going to see these patterns where the high shadow price of balance sheet leaves the field to some leverage players who may take on more risk than may be optimal I think one of the indications of this might be what we saw in the repo market in September where if you read the BIS quarter review what we were saying was that yes the shortage of reserves may be one factor but it's also true that a lot of the treasury demand of the treasury holdings were actually in the hands of non-bank leverage players and one indication of this is the so-called cash future spread where if you have a futures exposure that's a zero money down bet it doesn't need balance sheet capacity to lay on that bet but holding cash treasuries needs balance sheet so if balance sheet costs are high you'll see a spread between the cash and the futures yield and this is the kind of thing that might crop up when you have this combination of high hedging demand and the low supply of hedging services so I think this goes to some extent to what Elgar was saying earlier where you can certainly preserve tranquility by providing plenty of liquidity to the system in the capital markets but it doesn't mean that we can completely eliminate some of these tensions the tensions will be there because we now have this combination of a banking sector which looks pretty constrained and the capital market which is very accommodative in some respects but maybe less accommodative in other respects Thank you so the decentralized equilibrium where everyone had chosen how to approach these questions I think worked out quite well we had a nice discussion of the CCYB through Elgar's contribution the route of roles of multi-policy and macro-potential which I guess follows Jeremy's keynote beforehand and we've come to the role of banks and non-banks and of course when the key cross-border spillovers is between the dollar market and the euro market and other FX markets so I think one very important point that came out was in terms of the timing of when the CCYB should be activated and again this goes back to Jeremy's burden of proof earlier on I can just tell you anecdotally from the central bank of Ireland when we decided we chose a one percentage point CCYB even though it was super early in the credit cycle I mean basic credit was still shrinking but the assessment was we did the basic calculation what's the problem of going too early versus the problem of going too late and the evidence and the central bank of Ireland there's a lot of published research on that it's not that the harm from going too early is not that much as long as you can dominate your banking lobby with that I think it's best to use the time we have remaining to take comments and questions from the floor for any of the panelists maybe after a day and a half of macro proof you're exhausted but please Benoit something that already Jeremy said and he stressed is that next time we won't have all indicators pointing in the same direction at the current juncture one thing that the Fed is stressing frequently is that if you look at the household sector they are consolidating you know the balance sheet is improving it has improved a lot in the crisis if you look at the euro area you see that credit is slow so you know Jeremy was pointing at the relevance and the quality of the signals that come from quantities so if we look at the US household sector in the US is still relatively large actually the largest economy in the global economy and the euro area is also fairly large so we can worry about China where credit is still very fast but if we think of these two places the US and the euro area we really at the signals we have from quantities are really mixed in the US and in the case of the euro area it's mixed as well because you have some countries where it's fast other countries where it's not fast at all and the debt to GDP ratio is declining so actually is the Fed too complacent to reassure themselves with the fact that the household balance sheet situation is improving or how do you want to weigh the signals that you have from the corporate on the one hand and the household sector on the other hand okay let's gather a few comments and questions and then I'll come back to the panel please Charles the best idea that I've heard in this conference for dealing with crises is to limit the amount of dividends that can be paid out and what I want to ask the panel is how easy would it be to introduce dividend restriction under such circumstances okay and maybe if we take one more question before I turn back to the panel okay we won't insist so let me turn in order so Anil okay on Benoit's question so I think it's helpful to think about the debt service ratio both for the corporate sector and for the household sector is the thing that you're trying to manage on the borrower side so imagine you've got a tail of highly indebted households or firms and what you're worried is they're going to the households that you ever cut their spending even if they don't default on their loans the businesses will stop investing and you'll get kind of an aggregate demand feedback into the economy from these defensive actions so I think a good way to think about this is to just look at how the tail of the highly indebted people look and then to try to do some sensitivity analysis of how much would interest rates have to rise or how much would incomes or earnings have to fall for you to go into the danger zone and so if you look at the Bank of England FSR they have numbers like that and at least in the UK right now the household sector is relatively safe I mean debt service ratios are incredibly low by historical standards it takes something like 150-200 basis point increase in interest rates with no growth in income just to get you to the average level I don't know what the US numbers are but that's the way I think about that Charles's point about the dividends I mean one thing that you see when you look at these stress tests is you hit these minimum distribution rules that automatically shut off dividends and I think that's a good thing after Hyun and I wrote that paper in February of 2008 we actually have an op-ed that was in the financial time saying they shouldn't be allowed to pay dividends it didn't get any attention but as a tombstone I'm glad that we wrote that at that time so it may be challenging I do think one thing that you get out of the stress test is you train the supervisors to have conversations with the management of the banks about the idea that you might force them to shut off dividends and so one kind of carrot versus stick thing is that at least in the UK stress tests if the firm has an announced policy that says we will slow down dividends we give them credit for that so that that counts towards making sure they stay above their minimum now I don't know to what extent investors take heed of that but I think that's a good policy to try to train them to say if you'll pre-commit that this is your policy then you're going to get credit for this and you won't flunk the stress test so I don't know if it'll work but at least there's a little bit of momentum in that direction one last thing I want to just endorse what Vitor said which is buffers have to be usable if this stuff's going to happen you can't say right at the time of the crunch that you're never going to release the capital if you do that you've defeated the whole point so I think that's every time anybody in a policy position that's setting a buffer talks they should remind people the buffers are going to be used okay, thank you, Vitor yes, thank you we'll just address the question by Charles on limiting dividends well in the present situation that would be difficult to have such a policy across the board let's say but nevertheless, and I would prefer clearly in this situation just to be possible to increase the CCYB in preparation for the future but I point out, as Neil already started to point out that there has been a change in treating and calculating what is called in the legislation minimal distribution amount that the banks can really distribute and initially in the European legislation in the CRD4 and CRR what is defined is that for that calculation the operational limit was just pillar one capital ratio but since 2015, pillar two has been added to it so there are more limitations were introduced since 15 to these minimum distributable amount that the banks can use so that mitigated a little bit the possibilities of dividends distribution but I think that to address the second part or the second question of the organizers which I had no time to address but now very briefly taking advantage from your question I don't think that besides the CCYB or something of that sort the priority as I see it is not so much to increase regulation on banks but on non-banks because what has been happening is that to also use one of your sentences regulators have forgotten about the boundary problem so it's all about the banks nothing about the non-banks which are growing in terms of assets much more than the banks to give you a number 2007 the total amount of assets under management by investment funds of all types was 17% of total bank assets in euro area now is 44% there are valuation effects here but nevertheless it's a big structural change and nothing is being done there in 2015 the ECB published public opinion saying well we need to have permanent minimum margins and air cuts both on applying them just to secure the financial transactions and also to the derivatives and there must be also there should be also a time-varying component in that the authorities could use in order to correct the prosyclic buyers that the market introduced in calculating and applying margins and air cuts nothing has happened the recommendations of the FSB are very mild and soft and very vague the same is true about the FSB recommendations regarding asset managers in general also very vague nothing will happen there and in Europe in particular there has been an increased mismatch between the maturity of the asset side of all investment funds and the maturity of the liability side so the mismatch has been continuously increasing and there are no tools in the hands of the supervisors the tools that exist in the law are to be used by the managers of the funds themselves so there is a lack of dealing with this question which that's my final thought contributes also in this environment to undermine the franchise of banks and with the meaning that in my view regulators and supervisors must not ignore the fact that the situation of the banks in Europe if you read the latest financial stability review of the ECB the picture is dire because in the baseline scenario the ECB is projecting a decline in the next two years of ROE of banks in the baseline so it's dire and the situation there exists is not totally created by things outside of the remit of regulators supervisors and policymakers and so part of the situation of that environment for banks is the responsibility also of authorities and I think it's time in view of this situation that European authorities wake to these problems of all the environment that now surrounds the banking sector in Europe Thank you Vitor Yes, just coming back to Benoit's question on the indebtedness I agree that at the macroeconomic level it is not particularly worrisome at least on the household level there might be some concerns at the corporate level in terms of how quickly indebtedness increases and also what the money is used for but I do think we also need to sort of go more into the details and look at some individual market segments or lending segments and sort of look more at the distribution because while on average there might not be an issue there might be tails or segments that are actually more of an issue and all in all at the moment financial vulnerabilities at least in the US on our estimates are well contained and as a result a recession indicator that we have built that sort of maps recession probabilities based on financial vulnerabilities so to some extent different than metrics based on yield curves or activity data is still pointing to a much more contained recession risk than what the consensus is currently forecasting for the United States what worries me a little bit though is that our financial conditions indices which have been pointing to a material improvement in financial conditions over the last nine months or so on the back of the dovish pivot by central banks that by the Fed last much of this year is not getting any traction really into better economic dynamics in fact now by now the economy should have picked up based on the material shift in the monetary policy stance and that's not happening and it's not entirely clear why that is yes some of it could be the trade tensions in Europe so some of it could be the fact that we are at a very low interest rate level and that the side effects are building even though they're still not outweigh the measures taken but there's clearly something going on and to some extent that worries me that financial conditions are easy and the stimulus doesn't find it into the economy so that could also potentially I think speak to some of our vulnerabilities building up thank you let me address both questions at the same time actually so Jeremy gave us this very insightful pairing of quantity indicators and price indicators I wonder whether we're currently at a time where those two indicators are pointing in different directions if we look at this chart quantity indicators are actually very far from flashing red because at least in terms of bank lending at least in the US and the Euro area we don't see very much but in terms of the price indicators and the deterioration and credit quality I think there are several indicators that credit quality is deteriorating I mean this is not to deny that outside those countries that suffered the brunt of the crisis we've seen that continue to grow very fast so in those countries that didn't really suffer the worst of the crisis we've seen household debt now continue to climb in many emerging markets that's true but certainly for the US, Euro area, UK those countries that really suffered the brunt these two signals are going in the opposite direction now what about Charles's point about what if you just stop dividends well I haven't shown you the dividend chart here but dividends have continued to flow at quite a pace and if you think about it think about Tobin's Q if you pay out your book equity you get one dollar or one Euro but what do you lose? you lose the equivalent of one share in market value so if the market-to-book ratio is less than one you're better off paying out and liquidating and so it's going to be very difficult to just require by Dictat that you will not pay dividends because it's going to be very very difficult to make that consistent with the incentives of the banks and I think this is where possibly we need to be thinking a bit more imaginatively so I think in the sense that we may be in a situation where the old rules of thumb the old rules of thumb that worked before the 2008 crisis may not be the right ones to look at right now and we should be looking at I think, in my view I didn't have a chance to go through the swap charts but we should be looking at the capital markets we should be looking at the international capital markets in particular and the role of exchange rates and I'll say a bit about this in the session tomorrow after Kristin actually in the session for Benoit okay, thank you so let me thank the panelists I think it's a very interesting panel and the event reconvene at 4 p.m. thank you


Hey crew have you been wondering what's been happening here at Surfing Scratchers studios over the past couple of months since that infamous event Well stick around because I've got an update to give you a load of thank yous and shout outs to share with you And I also want to give you a bit of a roadmap of what's ahead and what's in store over the next couple of months So stick around and we'll get stuck into it Hello world if you're not too familiar with me I'm the surfing scratcher. I'm a teacher-surfer programmer and I'm gonna say slight entrepreneur these days maybe entrepreneur and I help curious learners just like you along on your learning journeys So this isn't a how-to coding video This is an update video and I just want to share with you what's been happening over the past few weeks Yeah, since some interesting things happened in this this environment Funnily enough there was round two that happens that actually came back But anyway, we're not gonna get into that. It doesn't matter. We are focused on you guys and bringing value to you So first things first. I just want to make a huge shout out to the community out there I'm gonna go through a whole line of thank yous and Mentions in a moment that I just want to say right from when I posted that video Just the comments that were flooding my way with well wishes and yeah people sharing with me both Students users and educators how this content has impacted them and their their groups of learners. It's just it really motivates me to keep making these videos and keep putting out this content and continuing to serve you guys because that's ultimately what I'm Here for I want to bring you some value I want to share with you my learning experiences and and document that and hopefully yeah You guys can apply that to your own learning journeys as well without your support I wouldn't be making this video right now and I wouldn't be making future videos. So, you know, I'm just I can't really express the the gratitude deep enough that that I've kind of experienced over the past few weeks Through your well wishes and specifically I just want to go through and thank each of the the GoFundMe page donations because every contribution has helped immensely to yeah Restock this this camera that I'm coming to you with now and also picking up a new laptop Which are the absolute essentials out which are needed to keep bringing content to to you guys So I just want to give a big shout out to we're just gonna rapid fire But thanks Karen James Frank Karen Bronwyn Louise Sandra Lisa Yana Alistair Nobel Tony Tim and Cara as well as a few anonymous donations that I'm not gonna mention But you know who you are if you are watching this video. So Together you guys have raised over a thousand dollars, which has been absolutely epic and I was not really expecting anything to that tune so Thank you so much for those donations and I hope you're able to to find Downloads to the resources because I made those available on the GoFundMe page And if you haven't and just finding out about that now go suss out that GoFundMe page and check out a download link to every single teacher Resource I've ever made it just there for you to go and download. I just want to give a quick shout out to the three patrons of this channel Yeah, there are three and I love you guys for your continued support of just kind of automating Yeah, your support month-to-month. So I just want to thank Vivian, Maya and Oliver I pronounced your names right, but yeah, I just want to give a shout out to you guys as well For your continued support of this channel It's um, it means it means a lot and every single contribution helps to Continuing to bring it this content to you now I just want to make a few shout outs to people who've supported me along the way Certainly not getting paid for any of this I just want to mention these people because they've thrown well wishes my way And I just want to like make a shout out to them. So the first is Pachronix. They're my go-to for and I want to find some educational Technology equipment hardware that sort of thing here in Melbourne. So love working with with Parthik over there So thank you for your continued support Parthik and out working relationship as well Even though you have not asked me to say any of this, but yeah, thank you Also in the well wishes. I received a message from a foundation over in the Netherlands of all places and funnily enough I've lived in the Netherlands for a little over a year, which is cool and the message of well wishes That came from that direction was really cool because they ended up checking out their website, which is there's a Dutch version It's called Skills dojo.nl or dot nl I know punt is the the word for dot in the Netherlands That's so that's the that's the Dutch version But I was over checking out kids course and if you're an educator out there go check out this website because they've got some resources and different resources and really cute Kind of unplugged style resources as well as some plugged resources that you can go and check out So yeah, you'll be seeing a few of those on your screen right now And yeah, I love these ones that little kids programming paper robots definitely go and check out some of that so thank you for your well wishes are Over there skills dojo and likewise a big shout out to you guys the fans because you've been making some gnarly comments Which I've really appreciated and it's it's really spurred the motivation to continue making content for you guys So, you know just massive like heart symbol from me to you And hey, I want to make a shout out to broody man one because I promised I would make a shout out Okay, let's change gears and I want to share with you what's in store for surfing scratcher going forward So the first thing that I want to share with you is that I've just been accepted into a startup incubator program called the Startup Gibson tech skills incubator for 2021 and what that's gonna be it's a three to four month Intensive where we'll be spending about five to six weekends Doing workshops over building a business essentially and what that means is figuring out what people want what customers want and Trying to bring value to them, which I think is a really important Pathway for people who kind of want to find meaning in their life and are looking for purpose because if you can find out What matters to you and you can overlap that with what other people are sort of looking for And pain points and creating solutions for that and you're just creating win-win situations So yeah, I'm really interested in the entrepreneurial pathway and its application to education So what I'm thinking of doing over the next couple of months are that's gonna be quite a big program I sort of want to document that journey with you guys I want to want to talk with you some of the content keep insights and some of the books that I've been coming across as well Because I just sort of want to do the learning for you give you guys the shortcuts If they're there or even spark your learning journey because I would love to down the track Take a group of learners through this sort of entrepreneurial program as a way to give back or as a way to just yeah Help you guys along on your journeys to the cool thing about this. You might be listening to this and going Oh, I don't know about this But you know if you're a young person making games out there This is all gonna be relevant to you because ultimately if you're interested in making games. Yeah, it's great to make games for yourself It's kind of fun. It's great to explore and experiment with different things But ultimately if you want to become a game developer over in scratch And beyond then you're gonna have to make games for other people and when you make games for other people You've got to tune into what interests them and what they like It doesn't always align like that But I'd encourage you to chat to the people who are gonna be playing the games that you've made or Maybe just people who like playing games and then you can gain some insight into what kind of games you can make for them because Yeah, the more people are playing it the better you're gonna feel as well now I've had cool scratcher mentioned a couple of times about collaborations and I've got an idea that I'm gonna work on in the background throughout this program and That is to take out one of the car games that I enjoy playing and it's called Q and Q is by Ricky Tata and I just had this idea that you know games with all their instructions They're already there's a game that's ready to go It's already sort of been proven and it's got a sequence of rules or instructions So in my mind it was like oh, that's something that we can definitely program in scratch So I'm gonna have a crack at making a prototype of this game in scratch and sharing it with you It's gonna be a multiplayer game. So I think it's sort of two to six players I'm gonna make this maximum for just to put a constraint on it and I'll start with two but I'm gonna take you through a that process of sort of looking at this game and unpacking it The to understand the design process and that's a that's a key programmatic skills like starting with something and working backwards from its Solutions, so I want to document that for you guys because I think that'll be really useful and shout out to Ricky Tata Who is the game creator I reached out to and gave his blessing for us to do that So that is ace if you're not familiar with Q. It's it's a pretty neat game It's really quick goes about 15 minutes and that's an ultimate bluffing game So you think you've got a good line game with your mates then it's not a bad one to put on like I'm a terrible liar So people find me out immediately. So I'm very systematic when I play this game And that's my kind of strategy bit. Anyway, stay tuned with that videos for I probably they won't be dropping for a little work So I still want to make that prototype But we'll see how we go with it and there you have it I'm gonna get this video out to you ASAP and I'm gonna try and do sort of a weekly check-in with some of this startup Gipsel and stuff that I'll be doing over the next few months and hopefully I'll be able to Wrap in or thread in some of that scratch content out with you as well. So I'm gonna leave it there I just want to again lastly express all my appreciation and gratitude for you guys out there And I've also got some ideas around some challenges that I want to throw out to the crew out there specifically you young scratches So stay tuned on that in a future videos until next time. I'm off to go find a wave I'll catch in the next one


First question is about smart contracts. Ali asks, how are operations conducted without having middlemen? Who does them? Can you give us some real-world examples? Which application is best for it? When a smart contract is executed, it is a software program. Every single participant in the smart contracts platform... let's take, for example, Ethereum, just because I know Ethereum a bit better than some of the other... smart contract platforms, but the same kind of logic applies to all of them. Every single smart contract execution starts with a transaction. Someone makes a transaction, and that transaction has a contract as its recipient and tells that contract to do something. Basically, it is the input to a program. Smart contracts are just software, after all. What happens then? Who runs the smart contracts? The simple answer is everyone runs the smart contract. Everyone who is participating in the Ethereum network, running an Ethereum node, running a business, the nodes themselves, the Ethereum nodes, the clients, the computers that are running as part of the Ethereum network, will receive that transaction. In order to validate that transaction, they execute the smart contract, and they pass as input to the smart contract that transaction inside what is known as a virtual machine. A virtual machine is basically a simulated computer. In Ethereum, that is the Ethereum virtual machine, or EVM. That simulated computer takes the transaction that was the input to the smart contract, it takes the contract code that is recorded on the blockchain, and it runs that as a software program with that input. Now, if all goes well, that transaction should run successfully and produce some change in the state of the system. Meaning that a variable is updated, maybe a payment is sent, maybe some money is deposited, maybe something changes ownership, maybe part of the memory or data store of the contract itself is updated with new values. These state changes are then recorded on the blockchain. Now, if you imagine thousands of computers all running the same software, they are not running it at the same time, there might be some slight differences in time, they are each running it locally on their own machine, and they are each using as input the same transaction, the same blockchain. Now, given all of that, they should all arrive at the same conclusion, they should all run the program identically, and produce the exact same results. Those results are what is recorded on the blockchain, those state transitions. So, on the blockchain in a smart contract platform, we record the transaction, as well as all of the results of the transaction, which may include events and changes to the state of the blockchain. Everybody can validate that they got the same result as everybody else, and when they download a new confirmed block from the Ethereum network, they can validate that block by running all of the transactions and smart contracts, and seeing if they agree with the results that the miner has included in there. If they don't agree, then they will consider that block invalid and reject it. Therefore, just like in other blockchains, like in Bitcoin, everybody validates. Everybody who is participating as a node on the network validates every transaction. In the case of Ethereum, to validate a transaction, that may mean, in most cases, means running the smart contracts and arriving at the same results as anybody else. There are no middlemen that are running this. This is done in a decentralized way. Now, all of that refers to the execution of a smart contract that uses information from within the blockchain. When it is running in the EVM, it has a very limited set of information it can act on. That is because all of that information has to be part of the consensus rules. It has to be the same for everybody who is trying to run that contract, so that they can all validate it the same. That means the smart contracts are very limited in how much information they can access. Meaning that they can't access information about the real world. They can't say, what is the temperature today in Pensacola? That is not on the Ethereum blockchain. They can't say, what is the price of Ether today? As a result, there are external services that sometimes supplement smart contracts. These are called oracles, which leads us straight into the next question by DDA. How can we make sure that an oracle feeding information to a smart contract is not corrupt? That is a great question, DDA. In fact, that is the biggest challenge with the technology of oracles. You have this compromise situation whereby smart contracts can only act authoritatively and within the consensus rules on the information that is already stored in the Ethereum blockchain, and the transaction they just received. They can't validate the truth of anything that is in the transaction. They can't validate what is happening in the real world. For that, we sometimes use external services called oracles. The problem with that is, if you trust that oracle, it has enormous power. For example, an insurance company has a clause that says, if it rains more than 30 inches in this particular region, that will trigger a claim on an insurance over a property to cover rain damage. That smart contract has to constantly check how many inches of rain have fallen in a specific area. You can use an oracle for that. You can use an oracle that publishes every minute or hour the cumulative amount of rain for the past 24 hours, and if it exceeds a certain threshold, then you could trigger an insurance payout. Here is the problem. Now you have centralized a lot of the control and power into this oracle. Where is this oracle running? In most cases, it is running outside of the Ethereum network, or if part of it is running inside as a smart contract, certainly the information about how much rain fell in the last 24 hours is coming from outside. That source has to be trusted.  One of the ways is to use a certain type of oracle, where instead of asking one source for the data, like how much it rained in a specific area, you have a decentralized mechanism whereby the oracle collects information from thousands of sources, and they must all agree. Effectively, you are running consensus rules on an external blockchain, a side-chain, or another blockchain that is used in order to arrive at a common truth. At that point, if everybody out of 1,000 people who are running rain sensors in Pensacola, Florida, and they all report within the range of 28 to 30 inches of rain, then you can say, okay, that information is more decentralized than we can trust it. Why does this matter? Part of the reason it matters is because smart contracts execute automatically. When they execute automatically, they also execute in a way that cannot be reversed. Imagine a situation whereby you have an insurance contract and it is going to pay out. If you hack the oracle and make it report the wrong amount of rain, exaggerating the amount of rain, and you trigger the insurance company to pay out all of these claims, then you can effectively defraud the insurance company. Therefore, smart contracts only operate on whatever information they have.  One of the challenges with interacting with the real world is how do you know that information is correct, and how much trust are you putting into a single provider? If you centralize trust, then that creates an enormous incentive for people to compromise that system, because they could receive billions of dollars presumably in insurance payouts. Arguably, no one is going to do that anytime soon. No one is going to write a smart contract that will automatically pay out billions in the case of an event coming from an oracle. This is where the real world of smart contracts, where the rubber hits the road, if you like, because it is exactly these challenges that mean that we are very far away from many of the alternative uses of the blockchain that people discuss today, simply because you can't put that much dependence on a fully automated system, especially if it has a centralized part of trust.


What are connecting questions and how can we use them to build belonging, connection and create a positive proactive tone for meetings about children? That's what we're going to explore in today's episode. Let's dive straight in. So connecting questions is something I find myself suggesting quite a lot lately because I'm all about small practical things that make a big difference and and connecting questions used at the beginning of meetings are something that can make a big difference both to the adults in the room. They can build belonging, connection and add generally to that sense of well-being, self-confidence, self-esteem within the room and also they can really begin to sort of flip the narrative, change the story and enable us to have much more positive proactive meetings with the right tone set about our children. So they really sort of are double whammy to be honest. I absolutely love them and also use them myself quite often when working with groups of people and I want to change the feeling in the room or build that sense of connection. So a connecting question is just literally any question that connects the people in the room and we often find ourselves in this situation where we are a set of individuals perhaps with some kind of shared agenda otherwise we wouldn't be there together but we're not a team. We're not all singing from the same hymn sheet and we don't necessarily have a unified goal. We might have a shared aim but we might not have shared ideas about how we're going to get there or maybe even what we think that's going to look like. Also we can have lots of different agendas driving this and sometimes we can lose sight of exactly what really really matters and we can find that sometimes some people in the room are driven by data type agendas or that they've got a very different take on things than other people in the room and all these things can create a less cohesive atmosphere and certainly one that might not make for the most positive proactive lovely outcomes for the child and can be intimidating for adults in the room who are less familiar with this kind of situation or just generally less uncomfortable in these kinds of situations. So we're going to think about different kinds of connecting questions and how we might use them. So the first kind of connecting question is one where we set the tone. So setting the tone is about us thinking ahead of this meeting. What do I want this whole meeting actually to feel like? So perhaps we're having a team around the child meeting. We've brought together a group of different adults who have different relationships with the child. There might be people there from home. There might be people there from school, some in a kind of teaching capacity, others in a pastoral capacity, perhaps others who have come from outside who support the child via other services. There could be all sorts of different people in the room who don't necessarily all know the child in the same context and who might all have different experiences, motivations and so on about the child. So when we think about setting the tone we're thinking how do we want this meeting to feel? So if you're the person who is leading the meeting or if you're in a position to influence the person who is leading the meeting think about asking a connecting question that would set the tone. So for example if we were having a meeting about Sean then we might say okay before we get on to the full agenda I just wanted to take a moment first of all just to reflect and think about what's fantastic about Sean and we would start with something that was as outright blatant, lovely as that. What is fantastic about Sean? Probably we've come together because there's been a problem with Sean. Something that somebody sees as an issue to overcome, a problem to be solved, in some way something negative has happened to trigger this meeting. We don't tend unfortunately to have these kinds of meetings when things are going swimmingly and well and we're here to celebrate a child. Rather we are here with issues, problems, negative stuff. This doesn't tend to work in the child's very best interests and can be really particularly tricky for those adults closest to the child. I'm thinking particularly of those adults from home and I know many of you listening in will be the adults from home and you'll be nodding along. So instead we start with what's fantastic about this child rather than recounting the issues problems, the things that have arisen in order for this meeting to have come about. So what is fantastic about Sean? Now we might do this as something that we share with one another in pairs if there's lots of people in the room or we can all share to the middle of the room and everybody can state what they like about the child. You, if you're leading the meeting, can really set the tone here by planning ahead and thinking really carefully about some really sincere and specific things that you're going to share that you really, really like about Sean. And we're thinking here about what makes this kid special? What makes this kid unique? What are his passions, his interests, his hobbies? What are the things that you admire about him? Where are those glimmers of real hope and joy that you see in your day-to-day work or care of this child? What are the things that would make him proud? What are the things you would like him to be able to hear? And of course maybe Sean is in the room. That would be optimal and imagine him hearing all those wonderful things about him as a way to start this meeting. Imagine how that kid would walk on air. As an aside, if you do start a meeting in this way and the child's not in the room, it's really lovely to take a note, even a mental one, of the nice things that the adults in the room have said about them to report back to the child because often they're not really used to hearing those kinds of really positive things from a range of adults in their life. So our first kind of question was about setting the tone and you can use anything there that sets the tone that you're hoping to create for this meeting. And often it will be that positive proactive child-centered tone. So we start with a positive proactive question about the child. Another kind of connecting question that we could use is one that shares experiences. This is one to try and get every adult in the room focused in a problem-solving mindset. This does two things. One is it takes a group of individuals and by looking at a shared problem to solve together then we become a team. It's one of the quickest ways to become a team from a set of individuals is to have a shared problem to solve. And it also gets us into thinking positively proactive in a problem-solving kind of way. So the meeting doesn't degenerate into being very problem-focused. We want to be problem-solving focused. So it takes a bit of a different slant. So we might hear be sharing experiences about something alike. Can people share their experiences of what has worked really well in such and such a situation? And this does not need to be directly related to the exact scenario that you're looking to address today, though it might be inspired by it, but it's really just a kind of a warm-up to get people thinking and get them thinking proactively and helping them realize that between them they have lots of different ideas. So for example, one I've used recently in a group of very, very mixed adults with different relationships to children within the room, I use the example of has anyone got any experiences to share of what's worked well when enabling a child who found it very difficult to speak in class to have their point of view heard? And this was a question that got people really thinking. Lots of people had direct experiences to share, or they had ideas that they had read about or heard about elsewhere, and they were able to all add to the conversation. The other really nice thing about this kind of connecting question where we're directly sharing practical experiences is it really levels the playing field. So sometimes within a meeting at the beginning there's this hierarchy of who sits where within the pecking order, and actually these kinds of connecting questions where we're directly sharing practical experiences and ideas can totally flip what that hierarchy looks like and really level it out, because the people who very often have very, very good experiences to share here will be our parents, will be our carers, will be our support staff who know children one to one and work directly with them each and every day to overcome these sorts of problems. And so they'll often have really, really good experiences to share, really practical stuff, and so it really levels out that playing field. Suddenly everybody is seen for their expertise, for their ideas, and it really, just helps to even things out, makes everybody feel a bit more comfortable contributing in the meeting today. Another kind of connecting question that you might choose to kick a meeting off with, and this is one that you might build into a regular agenda, is a learning question. Yes, I'm using the word learning again, having irritated you with it in previous podcasts. So learning is the idea of finding learning through failure and thinking about the times when things didn't go quite right, and actually thinking, well, what do we learn from that? What were the opportunities that we gained from that situation on reflection? What we do differently? And so on and so forth. And when we use learning moments as a way to connect at the beginning of a meeting, we ask a question about what mistakes have we made lately? Or what have we learned from things that went less well? Or has anyone got a mistake that they would be happy to share? And when we start with these kinds of connecting questions, when we gift our mistakes to others so they don't have to walk that same path, this creates an environment for that meeting, and for every meeting, if you do this regularly, where it's okay for the people in the room not to be perfect, where it's okay to be a little bit bold and brave in our suggestions and to perhaps try different things, where it's okay to admit when things haven't gone entirely right, and where it's okay to ask for help and support. And this can be really helpful, because A, it just generally over time will boost the kind of the well-being and the ability of people in the room to seek support and help from each other, and reduces the possibilities of things like perfectionism, or people holding themselves to impossible standards, thinking that everyone else is getting it right all the time because they're hearing that they're not. But also, even in a one-off meeting, it can really, really begin to change that tone. Because suddenly, instead of a group of adults in the room who might be, sometimes we can be a little bit, I don't know, competitive, and everybody's trying to show that they're the greatest person in the room. The kind of question we will often start meetings with is, everybody please introduce yourself. And everybody always seems to try and make themselves sound like the highest and the mightiest and the most amazing. I hate that. Honestly, I can't tell you it's the worst question to start a meeting with. And I know when you've got a group of disparate professionals, it's probably appropriate that everyone should introduce themselves. But I never know what to say.  I have no idea why you've asked me in the room. Why have you asked me in the room with all these amazing people here? I have no idea why I'm here.  I want the ground to open up and swallow me up. I can feel like a complete failure and the meeting hasn't even started yet. That might just be a meeting, but perhaps it happens to you too. But what happens when we introduce ourselves in that way, there is everyone's kind of trying to elevate themselves. But if we ask a question like, hey, can everyone share a mistake they recently made and what they learned from it, and we might do that in pairs if people aren't brave enough to do it in the whole room. But if we ask a question like that, that totally changes the feeling in the room. Suddenly, we're all human.  And we realise that everyone in the room is just another human being, and we're all just trying to muddle through this thing called life. And maybe, just maybe, if we connect and we work together on this, we might muddle through just a little bit better. And that might be in the best interest of the child that we're meeting about. So, learning, it's a really good way to just totally kind of break people down a peg or two, I guess, and create a really human approach to the things that we're doing and can make us a bit bolder, braver in the things that we suggest throughout that meeting. And so people can think outside the box a little bit more readily. Final kind of connecting question that you can use to start a meeting is one that is just for fun. Now, I will use these kinds of questions if I feel that ice needs to be broken. If people have been made to sit on tables at a conference that I'm speaking at where they're not allowed to sit with their friends, I might do this, to try and create a little bit of fun and a sense of connection on that table. It can be a nice way just to start regular meetings if we're really trying to build that sense of belonging and connection. And these questions feel like a waste of time if you don't think about all that they're bringing, because what do they actually contribute? Asking a question like, my favorite one, I'll drop into a conference every now and then, what was your favorite album when you were 13? This is a question that is guaranteed to generate a lot of hubbub in the room, a lot of discussion and banter and some laughter as well quite often. But what does it actually contribute? When I'm being paid to stand there and talk to people, why would I ask a question like that? The reason is because actually it does get people talking. It really does break the ice. It helps us see each other as humans, where before we weren't connected and there might have been some barriers and there might be people feeling very uncomfortable. And it also can create that sense of fun and laughter. And creating connection through fun and playfulness and laughter through these kinds of more silly questions, best biscuit in the biscuit barrel, share your favorite joke, whatever, funny memory. It can be anything, just something that's just for fun. What's the worst fashion faux pas that you ever made? What's the haircut that you most regret? Anything that's just a bit silly? When we connect through a little bit of fun and a little bit of laughter, that creates a safe environment. So when we're connecting in that way, it creates a safe environment where we are actually fully connected, which then creates a springboard for working together. So if I'm asking a question like this at a conference, it's because I'm going to be asking a lot more tricky, challenging, on-topic questions later on in that session. And by starting with something like this, I've then created a little team who will actually discuss things in a way that's meaningful, rather than having to be really kind of guarded about their answers and not feeling confident speaking up in this group. That's the idea and it tends to work fairly well and it can work really in any meeting. So if you're bringing together people who don't know each other, maybe we do ask a bit of a fun, a bit of a silly question. And it can be a nice way to get teams who do know each other somewhat well to reconnect and to learn a little bit more about each other as well. And what you will sometimes find as well is these kinds of just-for-fun questions will spill over into the breaks as well. And they can be a nice springboard for further discussion too, outside of that initial asking. So for me, are those kind of conference type events the person who's arrived at their own suddenly does have someone they can have a chat to because they have a shared love of oasis when they were 13, for example. So connecting questions, these are a way that I find to be very, very helpful to start meetings to build connection and belonging between adults in the room, which can be used over time to promote staff well-being if you're thinking about it from a line manager's point of view. But they can also be used to create a feeling of team within meetings where they are brought together more ad hoc. They can also be used to set a really positive, proactive, and bold and brave tone for what we want to happen in that meeting today. So give them a try. I'd love to hear about whether connecting questions have proven a good way for you to start or get back on track meetings that you are involved with. So just to recap on those question types, we thought about setting the tone, things like, what is fantastic about Sean? We talked about sharing experiences. Does anyone have any ideas about how to support a child who really struggles to speak in class? We talked about learning. Who's happy to share a mistake that they recently made and what they learned from it? And just for fun, what was your favourite album when you were 13? I hope you find some of these ideas helpful. And it would be great to hear from you on social media how you do use these ideas. Many of you ask how you can support my work. The easiest way that you can support my work is by sharing it. So if you liked this episode of my podcast or any of my other resources, please do share them on social media and on your email lists or by word of mouth. You can also support me by becoming one of my Patreons for a pound a month where you get a little bit of extra pookie and you see resources ahead of time. But mainly it's just a way of saying that you'd like to support my work and kind of join my tribe. Or you can support me by inviting me to speak at your setting or at your next event. Thank you so much for listening and I look forward to working with you again in a future episode. But for now, over and out.


Insulin is a critical hormone in our bodies. It's produced in response to elevated blood sugar and tells our muscle and liver cells to absorb that sugar. However, in some abnormal situations, our cells start resisting insulin's signal. Insulin resistance can lead to pre-diabetes and even full-blown type 2 diabetes. But researchers recently discovered that the gut bacterium elastopies indistinctus might help reduce blood sugar and increase sensitivity to insulin. The trillions of bacteria in our gut help us break down carbohydrates from our diet. Some researchers have suspected that these microbes play a role in an individual's tendency towards insulin resistance, but the connection has remained unclear because of a lack of metabolic data. This is the gap that the team from the Rekin Center for Integrative Medical Sciences set out to close. They tackled the problem by comprehensively analyzing fecal metabolite and microbe data from over 300 adults after a thorough medical examination. They found that individuals with more insulin resistance had higher levels of certain types of carbohydrates called simple sugars in their feces. The researchers also uncovered associations among various bacterial groups, low-grade inflammation, and these sugars in the fecal samples from the study participants. More research will be needed to untangle these relationships, but they present many useful new avenues to pursue. In this study, the researchers honed in on the bacterial order bacteroidalese. Members of this bacterial group were associated with reduced insulin resistance and lower levels of simple sugars observed in data from earlier in the study. Lab tests determined that bacteroidalese bacteria could degrade these sugars. Here is where Alistapy's Indistinctus enters the picture. The species is a member of bacteroidalese, and of the bacteria tested, it was able to consume the widest array of simple sugars. When the team gave Alistapy's Indistinctus to obese mice, it reduced their blood sugar and the levels of simple sugars in their feces. Ultimately, Alistapy's Indistinctus administration reduced insulin resistance. More research is needed to understand exactly how this bacterial species impacts insulin resistance and carbohydrate metabolism. Also, trials in humans will be needed before it can be used as a probiotic. Regardless, this study represents a step forward in the fight against metabolic disease and could lead to better treatments for people dealing with insulin resistance.


So today I'm sitting with Marco the business analyst from private property who's been responsible for the new property app Marco tell me why is public property launched a new app? Well, the old app was getting a little bit long in the tooth in the design and needed a refresh It had been around for a number of years and with little tweaks and updates along the way As we know now more and more people are using mobile devices to search for their perfect home And we thought it was the ideal opportunity to give them the best personal experience to do this on the app We feel that we've achieved this with the new app Marco tell me what goes into building an app? Lots of research and analysis and Ultimately, we always have the end user in mind So we took feedback from the old app what users liked what they disliked Suggestions on how to improve it in fact to that in the new design We do extensive research in global best practices and latest app technology To see how we can incorporate that in the product Next we focus on the user experience and the hook and feel before we start coding And then once we start coding we constantly tweaking testing to make sure we're a hundred percent Confident that we need to release an awesome product Wow, that sounds like a lot of hard work. So tell me about the new app Well, we're really excited. It makes searching for property really simple So for example, you could be searching for property say in Brineston and it has South Africa's first property feed So the feed works similar like your feed that you see in social media apps like Facebook Instagram Twitter Wow, you simply follow Brineston and Now you'll go into your feed and you'll see all listings that match your criteria that you choose like price range or whatever and Only stuff that you're interested in will come into your feed So now instead of you searching for properties the properties will find you now So you can think of it as property search without the search That is absolutely brilliant. Is it available for download now? It is it's available on Android in the Google Play Store and on Apple in the outstore And if you want more information check out our page on prior property.co.ca Thank you so much for talking to me Marco, and we wish you all the best with this new app. Thanks Mike. Thank you


Hello everyone, I am Dr. Anand Patil, Associate Consultant in Department of Urology, Manipal Hospital Bangalore World Airport Road. Today I will be discussing with about BPH and new minimally invasive technology in treating BPH. BPH is enlargement of the prostate. Prostate is a small gland which is seen in the male pelvis which surrounds the urethra. Whenever there is enlargement in the prostate, this prostate rests on the urethra, pushes the urethra, so it hampers the urinary passage through the urinary bladder. Many patients in their age group of 50s, 60s come across with the symptoms of enlarged prostate. The most common symptoms of enlarged prostate are they will have a poor flow of urine incomplete emptying of the bladder, sometimes urgency with some urinary incontinence and sometimes burning sensation, sometimes stones are noted in the bladder. So there are various treatment options for BPH, we have medical management, we have surgical management. 70% of the BPH symptoms can be managed with medically. In surgical management we have various options, like we have traditional way of doing TURPs, that is trans urethral resection of the prostate, we have laser prostatectomies, hollab surgeries and we have urolift. In trans urethral resection of prostate we use electrical energy to resect the prostate which is blocking the urethra by creating a viding channel through the prostate. This procedure is associated with various complications like hematuria, that is blood in urine, burning sensation after this procedure which subsides, it takes almost 4 to 6 weeks to come down. So the recovery time in TURPs to reach the P operative activities it takes 4 to 6 weeks of time. In era of minimally invasive technology we have urolift device.  This is basically a mechanical way of creating a viding channel where there is no cutting of the prostate, there is no ablating of the prostate, it is just placing the implants and pulling the prostate apart. We usually use 2 to 4 implants to pull the prostate apart, there are larger processes where the more number of implants might be required. So the advantages of urolift is it is a minimally invasive one, the patient can come to the hospital, get the procedure done, same day can get discharged from the hospital and go back to home without catheter. Important advantage of urolift is preservation of the sexual function which was not noticed in the previous traditional way of doing where there was retrograde ejaculation, where there was erectile dysfunction but with this urolift we are able to preserve the sexual function and the safety profile of this urolift is excellent and it has been studied worldwide n number of papers have come and which suggests it is a safety procedure to undergo. Added advantage of the urolift is the symptom relief is rapid, patient can get back to his preoperative activities within a couple of days and there is no rest required post procedure. There are minimal complications associated with urolift, you can notice some blood tinged urine and you can notice some burning sensation after this procedure which are self-limiting one, there is no additional treatment required for these complications. To conclude, urolift is a minimally invasive surgery where patient can have a preserved sexual function, get back to their preoperative activities early. So I encourage patients with symptoms of BPH to discuss with their urologist for the various treatment options possibility of urolift procedure. We at Manipal Hospital Bangalore old airport road have dealt with such similar cases in the past apart from that we have a disciplined team who have a vast experience and knowledge related to urolift, we have happy patients who are back to their normal life.


Wel hello there, how are you doing? This is the Bounce Nation who Unikings limi minikarendjasa and you are tuned in to the dopest show in the 2-5-4 Shasem ha? Mmm No, no, atu pungu ziki tiote na atu pungu ziki Eko saa wa evo Yubu ko eko saa How are you feeling? Me am feeling good today, I am taking it mellow kiasi Ha, makosa niyango Zizi zizi zizi zizi Zizi Bede last time nili na home kani me choka Lasmo choka, ata leo Tumibaksha dekangapi A few more mini Kumi peki akez metrasha Lasmo choka Anyway guys, welcome back to this awesome show Maze, we are joined by one of the head hitters in this music industry Hapa Kwaeenchi He is none other than Gudi G Gudi the G What's up?  Oh, my latest release is actually It's not a hipo, I'm a hipo artist But this song with it is former If you've ever came across those memes You know, form and stuff like that To become na song about it So that's actually my latest release Shoke About Shoke, actually Shoke we did with It's one of my friends from Afrocentric called Hasano We linked up with Hasano, yeah, so we came with Shoke The talent of Afrocentric on our girl, no masala Yeah, maze Apo kuhu kuna kituo meguzi, apo mezema kusu feedback Ugo na chikulia je negative feedback Me na zasemwa, ya ni both are in as a welcome So, ya ni na zasemwa, negative feedback In a way, ya ni kichukulia constructively Ita kubilbia Ya, kus wezi kuhati Oh, please everybody in kituo hezi happen Yeah, yeah All right, na, I don't know kumis kizango ma ya The legends, featuring the legends Remembering one other legend, Issa Yeah, I'm a Issa Yay So many people lmikuwa kii compare Truyomio to Issa I'm so glad that song is finally out Kus you can actually see Hakuna kumparison, kila mtu ako Legend on their own My question to you is What's it like, Amau? What feeling do you get? Does it bruise your ego in the industry? Misia kiku compare na another artist Ikwen ni artist mndop Amani ikwen ni artist, haja make it How does that make you feel as an artist? Do you feel like you've not accomplished? Do you feel like Man, I was meant to be Unique in this game Dem na nzakuni itam Say, mwingini apa mwene Everybody knows What's it like, you know For kumparison, kiki kumperi wani ni kama ma artist Mwingini say ma Generally for the I mean for you I at Me na feel When you want to perceive To the public Me only perceive kwa Competition between different people But kwa artist ya ni U kuatu wa du staff Ya kwa checki So mwingini say ma Taki kumpari na Namse mwingini Issa kuwa at some point Mwingini To some extent ya ni ni kama An owner in a way Ya But for me nesa say ma Ka mwingini, mwingini kumpari na Namse mwingini, isi kukuli yambaya But at the same time Me na ju am my own Am my own person Ya So my question to you would be After all the songs you've done Who else do you want to collaborate with Other than Or as Hasu Ha? Halia Hassan For me, me am open to collaborations I'm working with different people So these guys at times They make the collabo happen First of all shout out to You know tribu, you know Ah sorry, not tribu Shout out to vibe, $12 Shout out to Fulami A lot of shout out DJ Spence This one of the peoples Am working with my team So actually how we go about Collabo is They sometimes come up With the collabo Or you know Sometimes we We hit an artist So me, ya Like there are some guys In the industry Especially if you are a rapper In the country right now You want to collab with The top guys I mean I say all of them You know them You know the names I know the names Can I guess Kali Of course Kali man Everybody wants to work with Kali You wouldn't be a bad idea Working with them Alright Great Now Performances What's it like Performing Uki performia wa say Do you get anxiety Amma you're this kind of guy Who's like Yo I got this I already got this Because I know there are some artists out there Who are struggling Kidoga with anxiety When it comes to performing In front of a crowd Ya for me I mean I say Before performing Ya ni punayu Kunayu feeling ya ni Aujifenei da turn out But The Itchifika yu time So kwa yu moment Kila kituku wa too different Ya ni wa feel too Umenta tu na yu hype Ya ni me kubeba Ya Okay Ima ka me nili say Ma Kingsley Mi me decide We're changing the narrative I as a TV presenter I will try find a solution To the problem that is You know the Kenyan music industry What do you think Is the game changer You know For music industry Ya Kenya Ni ni na fah ku change like If it's tricked Kidoga like this Boom Kenyan music is On the world map I mean it's a motto kwa too open ya ni Kukurisiv ya ni New Arts Ya zapua Ya zapua big boost Me na feel Ya ya zasai Ya zabu tapata Mi Kituna zasai mania ya ni Ni ni the same names So if people Kidoga Ya zapua Ya zasai just kiasi ya ni Ukuwa a little bit receptive To New Arts Ya zapua better ya ni Ya Do you think Kamakuna Division between You know Artists Chuto ita mababi ama chuto ita Ha ha ha Artists mababi na artists mabagetu Ununakakuna division Fulani wa soa meje kakaliba Fulani Omi ni na zasai ma As much as Ni na zasai Mtu zasakat ku Ku agiyu ati Ati zasa kuna Iyo Kuna kati se ma tu se ma Katatataka wama cheki Spotify venya wu Advertise Trap ni ama kutiki Doche kuna venya me brandiyo So I think yo kitundi So let us say yo division But atni art maze Karim se ma abi Was appreciate It was Jamaika na duna Jamaika ni geto But I don't think kuna Division kama akadinalu Wana perform Westi Ya I actually Sashuna wana breakiyo Wana breakiyo baria And it's very easy Ya It's very easy to break it Ya Ya Got any questions for Na na na na na Maze mi labdani Mwish to all the best Ya man good start Ya This guy is not the limit Asi bi kameesa Shoo shoo Yezo Future project se zina kavipi You know it's a new year na January bad way jeisha Maki 3 years Few more years But kule na jokia wa so na se ma Si jukuna KCAP Bili KCSE Elections Jewels So 10 meter fly But what is the future like For kutideji? I may say ma the future brighter man Because it's a whole lot of project se zina kavipi So atu wa kutitu wa ki tegeya gudideji Apu YouTube ni Ni ni make sure me subscribe Link up with the g All socials gudideji maze Bitu zina kavipi Mi kuna matraksiki bahara Maybe pee ama album Ya so atu wa kutitu on the loka Maze Yoke And kuna kitu nini Nye wu fanya said from music Ya What's that? Ami yama graphic designer No way Ya Is it a thing with all the g's? Jwata ma ni unitengene zed Ni ni flyers naituwa g You never know maze But me sir I may be the cohesivist You never know maze True man Kumbushu wa atu social media Handle za kumali watastream music Ya maze I got to link up with the g YouTube sana maze Go hit that sub Maze Gudideji G Double dy The g The G And all across all socials be any good in the g So ya Hit that sub maze Follow me Let's link up Alright Ya Hello kuna Nini YouTube Channel ya kusab Coming up Yes, J's just sub Okay, alright Sub Subscribe to the whitefifu channel by the way We are also on YouTube To really kumzi kikidogo Kingsley To really kumzi kikidogo Kingsley Kingsley To really kumzi kikidogo


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we shall discuss the following question and the question says that probability of randomly drawing the name of our 7th grade student is 5 upon 12. If the names of 96 students are placed in a jar, how many 7th grade students names are in the jar? Let us move on to the solution. In this question we are given the probability of drawing a 7th grade student's name from the jar which is equal to 5 upon 12. Let event A be equal to drawing 7th grade student's name then probability of event A is equal to 5 upon 12 which is given in the question. We are also given that the name of 96 students are there in the jar and we need to find out how many 7th grade students name are in the jar. So the number of 7th grade students that have their names in the jar will be given by 5 upon 12 that is the probability of drawing 7th grade student's name into 96. That is the total number of names that are there in the jar and it is equal to 5 into 8 that is 40. So we can say approximately 40 7th grade students will have their names in the jar which is the required answer. This completes our session. Hope you enjoyed this session.