Well, we've spent the first part of the morning focused, understandably, on the safety of the banking sector, the resilience has been built up in terms of bank capital and bank liquidity and all of these important prudential issues. This panel, and I'm delighted to be joined by Somir Bavta from Credit Suisse and Kerstin after Jognac from the ECB supervisory board to talk about bankers' behaviour and the extent to which banks' governance can help the ethics in the sector. Specifically, how can we strike the right balance? That's the title of the session. Somir, if I could start with you. I suppose a casual observer of the banking sector over the past 10 to 15 years might be forgiven for thinking that banking and ethics is somewhat of a mutually exclusive issue, slightly oxymoronic. What would you say to that? Can governance step in and protect ethics? So I guess to the first question, is it an oxymoron? I think certainly when you look at and you made a comment in your introductory talk about the prudential nature, well actually conduct cases have actually become a safety at soundness issue for financial institutions. A recent history with the level of fines and significance of fines, there are estimates of upwards of 350 billion that have impacted financial institutions. So clearly I think everyone is focused on addressing it. Ethics plays an interesting and important role when it comes to any corporation, any entity. Obviously banks have a number of differentiating factors in terms of protection of public trust, fiduciary responsibility to our clients, and I think I would say it's not an oxymoron. I would say clearly we have a long way to go to address the ethical dilemmas and ethical issues. That's why we had such a focus recently on the culture of financial institutions. But when I was preparing for one of these speeches previously, I looked back at banking scandals. They have existed as long as banks have existed, even if you go back to the early foundation of banks in the 15th century. And in fact one of the CEOs at a bank that I used to work at said he's often asked this question, is the behavior of bankers worse now than it used to be? And he said, are you kidding me? We were scoundrels back then. We wouldn't trade unless we had inside information. It's just that there are rules now to forbid that. Now that might be an extreme view, but I think it is a tough nut to crack because it is human behavior. And the whole debate and discussion around culture, and we will discuss that, and I don't want to belabor the point because this is supposed to be interactive, I think, is that I think only through sharing best practices, exchanging views, encouraging what we think are really standard setting types of behaviors can we actually help to solve the problem. It won't be ever eradicated, just as fraud cannot be. But I think that we can collectively achieve betterment for the industry and ultimately are the public trust. We'll build on that thought in a minute, but just before I come back to you on that, I just want to bring in Kastin here and focus on what governance can do, how important can good governance be in preserving ethical behavior. I'm not just talking about regulatory scrutiny, I'm talking about internal governance within the banks. I think it's rather disappointing that ten years after the financial crisis, banks are still, I mean, the public doesn't have trust in the banks. I think there has been two waves. First there was a wave of banks taking too much risk and there were a lot of losses in the banking industry. And then we have had a second wave of criticism from the public very much linked to institution-specific scandals. So I think this is all about behavior, banks' behavior, and that is governance, I mean, how well the board and the management can steer the organization and what sort of framework they are establishing to get the right tone in an institution. And if you look at, there are many different indicators over how well banks are perceived by the public, but I think it's very clear that the trust in banks are still very low after the financial crisis, and there is probably a lot more to do. And I think therefore it's very interesting that we have this on the agenda today because I think this is something that both regulators, supervisors and the banks themselves have to work a lot upon in order to strengthen trust. Because if you don't have trust, as the chair was saying this morning, then you're probably out of the market after a while. Well, yeah, that's a key question, I suppose, is what we've seen remarkably, I suppose, despite all of the scandals and of the financial crisis that actually the banks have been able to hold on to the vast majority of their business. Even though this trust has been fundamentally shaken, it hasn't really, and despite huge competitive threats from, for example, the technology sector and so on, banks have actually managed to retain their core businesses to a large degree, even if profits are down because of other issues, the business has been remarkably resilient. Why do you think that is? Well, you alluded to competition. I think that there's still recognition, so first of all I think if there is true competition and true alternatives, which I don't think are fully developed yet, we will see what the ramifications are. But I think that banks still serve extremely important roles in the economy in general, and I don't think that that's going to go away, financial intermediation and the value that banks provide obviously is still incredibly significant. But I would like to maybe turn to another point, which is governance, and it's ironic because if you look at the developed economies and the developed financial institutions versus, let's say, emerging markets, the crisis, especially governance failures, were by and large of those banks in jurisdictions that had the most developed governance programs, the most sophisticated frameworks and policies. So, there's been a lot of written, a lot that's been written about it. So the question is, what is it that really is at the crux of the issue? And I think this discussion about culture, culture can either enhance or completely undermine governance. It's how you actually implement governance and is it in fact sustainable. So I think this is very important. Just to have a tick the box as we know doesn't ever work. So you can have policies, but unless they're really truly implemented not only by the literal terms, but in the spirit of what it's supposed to be aimed at, it will not work. So that means not just putting up posters saying what you believe in all over your headquarters means actually the behavior of senior management and the board and so on is reflected. Yes, I think it's bored. I mean certainly the regulators and I think banks all are looking to the composition of board members. If you look at large financial institutions, for example like Credit Suisse, where I work, the activities are incredibly, incredibly complex. How is it that a board member that is not from the financial industry, let's say an independent board member from another sector, pharma sector, can understand the complexity of what we do in order to ensure that there's appropriate direction on risk, for example. I think there's been a lot of focus recently on making sure that board representation is diversified, that there's a lot of experienced individuals on boards and also that the level of information and transparency and escalation that goes to the board is enhanced. You mentioned diversity. Is that an important safeguard in your view, do you think? I mean it's been said a million times now that if the people running Lehman have been Lehman sisters and not Lehman brothers, then it wouldn't have collapsed in the dramatic way it did. A more balanced approach to risk management but also controls might help ethical behaviour as well as risk appetite. I think this is a very broad question and I mean we have as supervisors we are assessing all the board members and the CEOs and in many countries also the main function holders. And we have a broad list of issues that we are looking into. We are making around 2000 assessments a year. We look of course at experience knowledge, really look at criminal registers. We are looking at if there are any tax issues that could create a reputational risk. We are looking at conflicts of interest and also of time commitment. I mean if you are on the board of a very big bank you'd really need the time to be in the details of everything. But then it is of course also the composition. If you have 10 people with exactly the same profile that wouldn't make sense because then there may be blind spots. So you need a relevant composition and you need people with different knowledge and different experience. IT is such an issue that we are discussing quite often because it's important that there are members of the board who have enough knowledge in IT and how to develop the bank's activities. How to identify the risks and how to follow up and make sure that you have a good information system that provides a board regularly with the development and the risks. So we are trying to do a lot here but I mean from our perspective we are approving those persons of the 2000 assessments we are doing around 30% of the cases. We intervene and have a discussion with the banks and with the candidates. But that is I mean to approve persons is just the first step. Then the excellence in governance it comes in the boardroom where the board works together and where they have to really set the standard which will then have to be implemented throughout the institutions. It sounds like this is an increasing focus for the ECB, the kind of abilities of the board. How you mentioned there the proportion that you asked questions of in terms of the proposed appointments. What proportion do you reject? I mean when we are being more intriguing going into details, asking about do you really have enough time for this as you have six other boards and maybe at the same time you are a CEO of a larger firm then people are rather often withdrawing. So when you have the papers on the table and you understand the view of the supervisors there is the most I think usual thing is that they withdraw and they are providing another candidate. But we have also taken decisions but it's not so usual. So I mean I wanted to come back to the interesting kind of historical point you made about bankers being scoundrels. Just because they've always been scoundrels obviously doesn't make it a good thing now. But I just wonder in terms of comparing bankers with other professions, other comparable professions. Is it just the proximity to money that it makes it more challenging to maintain ethical standards in bankers? Well it's really a perennial debate right so this has been intensely discussed and debated as to what is the role of incentivisation, financial incentivisation in encouraging poor conduct, misconduct. I think, well there are varying views of that. I mean so the question is, is there a direct correlation? If so how do we address it? I think the question is, is there a direct correlation? It's interesting because it reminds me of another quote which is one of the senior executives in the pharma industry that was on one of the boards of the banks that I worked at said. Do you know the number of hours that I spend discussing compensation per year with my management team? I said I don't know probably like let's say 20 hours, 30 hours? No, 2 hours. How much time do banks spend? You have a compensation committee management discussions on compensation. Now obviously well in excess of the couple hours. How important is compensation to what attracts people into the industry? Which is another interesting question.  I mean I'm not speaking for necessarily credit suist. I first went into the government and in fact I had this discussion last night with one of the other speakers. My motivation, it was clearly in my mind, it was not financial motivation, it was doing good, it was a higher social purpose. I went to government and I wasn't necessarily impressed there with let's say the ethical compass in which banks they decided to take enforcement actions versus others and I saw just proportionate focus on foreign banks as opposed to US banks. Some of that hypocrisy still exists. You could call it hypocrisy or prevalence for protecting the local entities but in any event I think it's hard to say if that's the root of all evil. I think interestingly if you look at the, because there's different schemes to address that problem, right? So tying it to long term sustainable profitability, deferred compensation, malice, clavax. And interestingly also someone said once that the bank that had the oldest scheme of deferring compensation, of equity based compensation and I didn't know this was Lehman. And I'm not saying that once again there is a correlation I think but is it something that is the root cause of all the problems? No, I would not say so. I think the interesting point about Lehman is I think they had the highest equity ownership among staff of almost any bank but of course that's an incentive. If you don't consider the downside risk that's an incentive to just take more risk all the time with the upside in mind I suppose. And I think most people would agree that a lot of the structural reforms that have happened both within banks and enforced by regulators has taken away some of that one way bet risk. However, the bottom line is that the amounts of money that people are paid is still very high and totally out of whack with the profitability if you think of the balance of the share of the spoils between shareholders and investors generally and staff. It's skewed in banking to kind of pre-crisis levels in a way that it isn't in other sectors and I don't know how sustainable that is. Well, I think regulators are clearly putting a lot of pressure on financial institutions on compensation, right? So obviously if they're not profitable they're saying how is it that you align profitability with the fact that you're paying these tremendous bonuses. There's public disclosure requirements of compensation. There's a lot more shareholder activism on compensation. I think ultimately it will require, there have been on the periphery suggestions and proposals here already for, but I think that they'll have to be at some point probably a fundamental policy rethink. And whether you can regulate it or is it just like, as long as you have shareholders or banks. The other question is should banks, and this is not something that we can dictate, but should they be privately held or is part of the problem that we are public corporations, right? That in and of itself adds interesting incentives. Yes, you're suggesting Jeremy Corbyn in the UK might be at the right model. Nationalisation is the way. I'm not saying that, but people can see the obvious inherent potential conflicts, right? More regulation of pay. Is that the answer, do you think? Because obviously in Europe there's already been more efforts in this area than most parts of the world in terms of the bonus cap. Although many banks would argue this has not really had the desired effect. It's not kept a lid on pay. It's actually just meant that more fixed pay is part of the total package and making structures less flexible. Maybe there's more that regulators could do as well as politicians. That's possible. I mean money is a driver and if you can earn more and maybe you are overseeing a little bit the risk that is in the products you are selling. But I think from the supervisor's perspective it is a broader perspective. Over the last four years we have made a horizontal review of the major banks in Europe, checking for example the framework for banks risk appetite because it's important that at the board level they have a discussion and that they are taking a decision on how far would we like to go on risk and what sort of risk do we want to have in this institution. And when we made this first horizontal review four years ago there I think there were very very few institutions or banks who had that framework in place. We have made a follow up on that now and we can see that most of them now have risk appetite framework in place but there is still more to do in this area and this includes of course also remuneration policies. Another area where we have also reviewed over the last four years is to what extent the board has enough information on the risks and the risk development and on the remuneration system. And there are international standards in this area from the Basel committee which we are having as a benchmark. And again we were rather surprised when we made this review that there were very few institutions where we could see that the board had enough information to assess the risk and also to challenge the senior management. So I think this is our perspective that we would like to see the board more active to have a competence and knowledge to really challenge the management in order to make sure that we have a sound and prudent development in our banks. More broadly, without wishing to do a marketing stunt for the FT, we've recently talked about the need to reset capitalism. It's been a big project that we've run. And I think that reflects a broader sense in the world arguably that unadulterated kind of shareholder value as a concept has maybe run out of road. To what extent do you think that is an important part of the way banking needs to change if indeed you agree? And how does that broader focus on stakeholders get reflected in the way you manage the business? So I think, first of all, I think they don't necessarily have to be an opposite. So you can pursue sustainable profitability still aligned to your values and ensure that they're sustainable because that's what actually ends up to be sustainable to ensure that it's based on principles of integrity. All of the banks have codes of conduct, fairness and dealing, ensuring that customers are well aware of the risks that they're incurring when they invest in a product, that we maintain our fiduciary responsibility to financial institutions, we reveal and disclose conflicts. So all of these things in ensuring that we banks comply with rules and regulations, both as I said, not only the letter of the law but in the spirit of the law will end up being obviously sustainable profits. So I think it is something that on the periphery people struggle with and going back to I think the comment also that Kristen made in terms of the level of information that's going to the boards. If you look at, it's interesting to look at the recent AML cases because there's such structural fundamental deficiencies that no one questioned. So for the Estonian branch, I mean the language of the reports, we're not even understood by the managers. We're talking about Danske Bank. Yeah, Danske Bank, yeah, exactly. So here the controls, in order to ensure sustainable growth, you're saying you have to comply with regulations, you have to know your business practices, you have to properly risk manage. Even if you have the systems and a lot of banks don't even have the aggregate systems to look at clients across locations, I mean there may be legal or regulatory restrictions. But if you think about onboarding, so for example, and maybe I'm diverting but for Switzerland they discontinued for the most part business with US clients. So how is it that they knew that a US client, if they were off-boarded in Zurich, would not be onboarded in Singapore or in Brazil or Mexico. A lot of the bank systems, and setting aside, as I said, any bank secrets or client confidentiality or legal regulatory restrictions, do bank systems even enable banks to be able to, on an aggregate basis, have a single view of clients, a holistic view of clients. How are you supposed to as a bank mitigate and manage your risk unless you know what you're exposed to? You may have even different ways of identifying the same client or related parties of the same client. So let's not even talk about individuals or corporations, we know how complex these relationships are. So when you start getting into the detail, it is believing in what we're doing. So going back to the analogy of the board member who said, our people are motivated at finding a cure for a disease. What are bankers motivated by? Bankers should be motivated by ensuring that we are delivering to our clients, right? That we're protecting the trust that the public has placed in us for a variety of reasons. Is that what really motivates people? How do incentivize people to do that? So it's not only the stick, but also the carrot, right? So there are examples of incentivization during the US case where client advisors had to exit clients. Obviously, their pay they thought would be affected. So in order to neutralize that, a lot of the banks said, if you have exiting clients or indicia of US persons and you investigate and you find out that it's a US person, we're going to neutralize the effect of that. So you actually will not be penalized. It's as if you still have that client. So there are many things that banks can do to neutralize the effect of incentivization. More broadly, how long have you been in your current role? Two years. That example that you gave of governance failings in terms of structures, awareness of another bank practices in one division, I suppose highlights that in global banks, increasingly complex banks, the question of are they too big to manage, are they too big to govern is still a big question. I'm just wondering in your two years, what changes have you seen to improve the governability of your institution? I think so, and this is something that we've talked about also, the three lines of defense. The stature of risk and control functions, compliance for example. So this is extremely important. Once again, insincerity, genuinness of valuing compliance and risk and ensuring that people in compliance or the second line of functions are appropriately remunerated. You have to attract talent. It's the same with regulators, by the way. I had this discussion recently with the senior person at DFSA and he said, we pay our regulators really well. We want to incentivize good people. Money isn't the only driver, but it's very important. Stature, status of the control functions, participation at the senior most levels of management of an organization, and also just participation in the discussions. All of us working at financial institutions know exactly whether control functions are respected or not. It doesn't mean that you just have to be invited to the formal governance forums.  It's whether you are involved before a decision is made on strategy to actually advise and make sure that the business wants to hear what you have to say. Is that happening more now? It's definitely happening more. I would say that the stature of compliance was significantly enhanced as of the last couple of years, three years or four years. It's very important to see compliance as an asset, not only as a cost. Actually, I think at one of the recent Credit Suisse investor days, it was the first time that the head of compliance actually talked at the investor day. Because if you look at the reduction of shareholder value and the stock price, it is so much driven by financial misconduct and non-financial misconduct that if compliance is strengthened and you really have a solid risk management control framework, you can preserve shareholder value. Kerstin, those structures empowering those compliance people, paying them enough and paying regulators enough. Are you paid enough? That's clearly an important thing. What do you look for when you are considering how well-governed risk functions are in institutions? We were alluding to the Dansker Bank failures and the fact that people just didn't know what was going on in this Estonian branch. But I'm sure that's not an isolated instance. I'm sure there are knowledge failures across a lot of different banks. How do you spot them and get ahead of that before it blows up into some big scandal? I think we can all take the wrong decision. I think that's for sure. You can take the wrong decision on a customer and that's why supervisors are insisting that there should be enough capital and liquidity in a bank. But I think it is another thing if decisions are not taken by accident but you are intending to do something that you are not allowed to.  You need strong institutions in democracies and in banks you need a very strong framework. That leads me as well to the free lines of defence because the first line of defence is a business area. Here we have a strong focus in our supervision on how well the business areas are assessing the risk in comparison to the profits. I think here there is more to do. This is a core part of supervision. The second line of defence is the compliance and risk management functions. I think here there has been substantial development over the last years. The number of compliance offices is much higher now in most banks. I think at least from my home country I can see that they are rather well paid because the resources are scarce in the market. We can, as supervisors, see that they are also digging into a lot and they have the risk focus. They are developing the methods also to measuring risk in a better way. Then you have a third line of defence with the internal audit and there we can also see that progress is coming. We think more can be done in internal audit. That's probably not the case just in banks but in all kind of firms that we need to develop our thinking. We also need very good people in the internal audit functions who understand the business and who are able also to report to management and to the board that they can report in a way that really makes a difference and that can also help management to make changes if needed. Somir, Kerstin has talked about there the massive build up of resources in these internal departments. Of course that's one of the many reasons why banks are showing slimmer profitability these days than they used to. This is a massive overhead. Has it gone too far? I don't think it has gone too far. I think what we will see is a bit of an adjustment because of technology actually. I think that, as you also alluded to Kerstin, I think what is happening is we need a lot of humans to process the data, to analyse, to do due diligence. I think with the advent of a lot of these monitoring and surveillance tools, we will also be able to probably reduce the humans needed to analyse the data. I think as we start seeing, I mean I was giving the example of having a holistic client view, once again a lot of this is analytical based and it can be process driven, it can be application driven. I think that that will ultimately reduce compliance spend in terms of human spend. I think that the dedication to the compliance function as a whole, be it by technological means or by humans, will never diminish. I don't see the industry getting to a place where there will not be some type of conduct. As I said, because when looking back at history, it has been throughout its inception, it's like saying are people going to cheat and defraud and how to prevent that. There will always be incidents. The question is the reduction of those incidents. I just wanted to touch on, obviously we could spend hours talking about climate change, but I just wanted to touch on this area because you talked about sustainability of business models. Arguably the broadest definition of sustainability brings in the fundamental question of how sustainable our world is and to what extent climate change threatens that. When you think about the ethics of banking and the way to balance priorities, how does that figure in your thinking? I think it's very important. I think banks serve a very important social purpose. If you look at even the cases that I alluded to before the tax evasion cases with the Swiss banks, the US IRS could not go after because they didn't know who they were, the individual US citizens. They have to go after the intermediaries that had the bank accounts. So it's the same thing. We are intermediaries. We enable or we do not financing of industries that may damage the environment or that may pollute the environment. So I think that banks do play a very important role in that. I think that overall and there have been various groups of regulators and I think in the UK in particular started by Carney, which are very, very vocal in this area. And you've seen, I think, tremendous support among financial sector. Not just from an ethical point of view, actually from a financial risk point of view, the exposure to stranded assets and so on. And it's an absolute critical component of risk management, absolutely. Where do you kind of fit into this? We talked about regulators are starting to shout more about this issue. How do you think about climate change as part of your brief? Yeah, I mean, that's part of the risk that we are discussing with banks and we are making a regular supervisor review and evaluation process of banks risk and risk management systems. I would say that so far we haven't really seen that banks have developed, I mean, the risk identification system in this area yet. I mean, this is a very difficult area. There is a lot of discussions everywhere and we are discussing as well internally. But I think here we have all to step up our efforts in order to identify the risk and also to make sure that we can measure and monitor the risk in this area. But it is difficult. I mean, I'm the first to say that, but it is on the agenda and on our radar screen. Yeah, OK, fine. In a couple of minutes I'm going to come to the audience because I suspect you may have questions for my panellists. But before I do, I've got to be slightly provocative, Somia, and bring up the vexed question of Iqbal Khan. For those of you in the audience who don't know this story, it was a slightly tragicomic tale of a former senior Credit Suisse banker who fell out with the chief executive, left the bank and then was tailed by private detectives and led to a confrontation in the centre of Zurich. It was great fodder for journalists and we had great fun writing about it. But the serious point and why I'm bringing it up... Which may I interject, that raises the question of responsible media, but I don't think you're on the hot seat on that one. You might be outnumbered given the number of journalists in this room, but that is an important question, absolutely. But the reason I raise it here is because it does come down to culture and questions of culture and behaviour and so on. What we were talking about earlier, in terms of the tone from the top being important in defining culture and the way people think about behaviour, given that the chief operating officer left the bank as a result of this having apparently been involved in authorising the tailing. How do you square that with the importance of sending positive messages to staff? I cannot really comment on this specific incident. I think just in general I would say it's a very interesting case study. Harvard Business School once did a case study on UBS. I remember when I was at UBS and they picked obviously different incidents, but it's an interesting case study on governance. In general I would say just a couple of more broad themes I would say. First of all, it's interesting what practices companies may engage in, but which are never out there in the public domain. So if there are valid predicates to surveilling, for example, right? So if let's say you have a contract with someone which ensures that they're not supposed to do X, Y, Z, and you think that they may be breaching that, it may be that you hire some firm to surveilling, or for example, due diligence, banks are under tremendous amount of scrutiny. So do companies or financial institutions hire surveillance firms for prospects that they're about to hire? Let's say you're about to hire someone of very senior role at a bank and you need to know. There were rumors, let's say, in the press about this person and you don't know if the person has been engaging in misconduct or not or goes to weird places. Do you hire a firm to surveil them? These are interesting questions. I think if anything, and as I said, I will not address the media question, which I have my own questions about, I'm sure many of you do, even in the media. You can ask that. But what it does is it raises, I think it's always, these examples are unfortunate, but they're very good examples because it raises to the debate. You could even say it's an ethical, in some cases, ethical dimensions, right? And then it also tests the governance of an organization, right? And this is not something that's unique, right? I mean, there have been many crises, organizational crises, if you will, and I wouldn't call this a crisis. But in other context, which the board has had to step in and address because management is somehow conflicted. But I would say this is a test of whether it works. And I know I'm not really answering the question because I can't comment about the precise incident. But what I would say about the media, and maybe if you will, what I find interesting is the repetitive nature of non-checked underlying source material, but just a regurgitation of whatever is in, originated in the tabloid press, yellow press or whatever you call it. So that to me is a departure from what I think the responsibility of media is to society, right? I mean, there was this outrage about fake news and all of this. But it's also the responsibility of all of the media to make sure that they source check and they actually report on things that they themselves think are worthy of reporting on. That's an important message. I hardly agree. Let's get some questions from the audience. We can be about anything ethic stretches across a broad spectrum of topics as I've tried to reflect in the questions. Do you raise your hand if you have a question now? Anybody? Yep, just here. Hi, my name is Andres Williams from the ESM. I had a question just on how can we strike the right balance. We're talking a lot about risks in banking. They have an important role in giving credit, deposit taking. How do we make sure that we don't stray too far on not giving service in order to decrease risk and make sure that banks are providing the right risk to the communities? Yeah, Kaston, do you want to take that first? Yeah, I think that was a good question because I really want to say that there is no balance to be struck here because I think you have to make sure that there is good governance in an institution and strong governance, strong values, sound ethics and sustainable profits. They are not by any measure mutually exclusive, but they are mutually reinforcing. I was not part setting the headline for our seminar, but I think that's important to say that you cannot strike a balance here between ethics and governance. When you mean you say you can't, it has to be... Yeah, I think you have to make sure that if you cannot diminish the governance or the request on governance in order to be more ethical or the other way around. Clearly you can never eliminate risk, but it is about doing as much as you can, I suppose. How do you think about it? Yeah, I think you have different categories as I see it. Clearly things that are not legal, we can clearly draw a black and white line, it's not gray. A lot of lawyers, and I'm a lawyer myself, try to say there's a lot of gray. I think there's much more black and white than we actually will admit to. Clearly there are boundaries that we should not actually cross. But then once you get into the is it legal or not, the question is also the fiduciary responsibility that you have. Should you disclose even if you're not required to, right? For example, with retrocessions for example, the fees that fund-to-fund managers were getting, there wasn't a requirement to disclose, so banks didn't do it. Now, should someone have said, you know what, we should actually, out of our fiduciary responsibility, disclose what we earn? Why is it that we're not more on the forefront of that thinking? There I think we really need to work collectively with the regulators and policy makers, but I think there's a lot more that can be done. Yeah, because no one wants to go first. No one wants to be upfront about something that nobody else is being upfront about. So you need regulators to step in. So there's always going to be a risk taking and obviously it's also how you essentially make your revenues. Right? But I think it's the way of you managing and mitigating your risks, the transparency within the firm and also to the stakeholders, as you mentioned, of which there are many, as to how you're addressing risks. Okay. Other questions? Anybody? Yep. The boss has a question. There's a microphone just coming. My question is about sanctions.   How important they are in the behaviour of banks? Because when I see, for instance, in Europe we have a very different national, let's say system for sanctioning, misconduct, money laundering, terrorist financing and the like. And sometimes you see that the market reactions when there is a European authority investigating is very muted. Then you have rumours that the US is investigating the same bank and then you see immediate impact on stock prices, CDSs and the like. So is sanction an important component of the solution or is it wrong to rely on sanctions to treat these issues? No, it's an excellent question. I think, you know, I analogize it. Maybe I'll start off by analogizing it too. I used to teach law at one point in my career and I used to ask the question because there are different theories about penalties that you associate with crimes. So deterrent effect, right? So does capital punishment actually deter murders from taking place, horrific murders that weren't then the capital punishment? This is not a direct analogy in some ways, but it's... Maybe that's the ultimate question. But it is the question about what motivates people to do what they do. With sanctions, and in fact I asked the head of enforcement at FINMA at the Swiss regulator, why is it that they don't believe in huge monetary sanctions? That's really something that the US, and when I started in the government I was at the OCC and I worked on one of our cases that I was extremely proud of. I was in the enforcement division and our largest fine was 70 million, it was close to 80 million. Now you just have to add a B instead of an M, right? And even that's even small. And then you ask the question of where does all the money go, which is a separate question, because I don't see improved roads or infrastructure in the US at a different point. But what is interesting is I don't know if it actually deters. So you look at the ratcheting of fines and as you rightly said US starts off. As soon as the US gets involved and US's view of jurisdiction as we know is everything under the sun, it's very extraterritorial. As soon as they get involved and the Europeans think oh my gosh I now I have to get involved and you look at the ratcheting up of fines. There's been so much talk amongst the industry and the US regulators because there's so many of them to come up with a joint settlement. So it shouldn't be the state bank authorities, it shouldn't be the federal bank authorities that are adding on their pound of flesh. They should work together and we've encouraged this broadly of not only US regulators but also European and Asia regulators. For the same conduct if you see FX Libor it shouldn't be just a ratcheting up, it should be collectively for them to work together to come up with a fine. But I'm pretty cynical when it comes to does that actually change behavior? Does it affect how banks and individuals actually engage in misconduct? And it goes back to the incentivization thing. If you look at the Quaco-Ediboli case, it's an interesting case in many respects. And I had heard once that he had stolen some device for an Apple store and his boss found out about at the time and they just laughed it off and said oh this is not an issue. Those are kind of precursors of what is a person willing to do but it's also the incentivization structure. It's the fear of not being able to speak up as to what the problems are and what the issues are. And I think after the fact I think we have to invest much more at the drivers of conduct rather than after the fact punishment because I just don't think it really effectively works. Do you have a comment on that or will you take your cue from the boss? We can take more questions. Any final question? We've got time for one more I think. Yeah, this lady over here. Hi, thanks to the panelists. I'm Carolyn, I'm from the Bowser Committee. My question is for Samaya. Regulation exists in large part. We talk about financial stability, obviously a key objective. Another one is to protect the depositors and creditors of banks. It's a key reason why you're regulated. You have this privileged position of being able to take insured deposits and lend them out in multiple, so leverage. I'm wondering how you think at Credit Suisse about accountability. I was really interested in your characterization of how banks need to think differently about their accountability. Is there any discussion about accountability to depositors and creditors in comparison to shareholders and how that can create some conflict and perhaps affect ethics, decisions, incentives? Great question. Thanks for the question. I think that's something that we alluded to earlier. It's sort of an inherent conflict to drive for your investors and your shareholders maximum amount of profits, but at the same time to protect depositors. In the case of investment banks that let's say do not have retail deposits that are insured by the federal government, it's still a question of the moral hazard problem in general. The bailouts that, of course, governments did with large financial institutions. I think banks and not only Credit Suisse, but a lot of banks actively discuss how to manage both at the same time, obviously, maximizing profits. I think it goes into the same discussion of making sure that we are complying with rules and regulations and that we abide by ethical practices and our business conduct. So it goes back to like, is the code of conduct that all the banks have now, is that really lived up to, right? So we have actually, in the code of conduct, we have like the interests of the shareholders, right? The interest of the stakeholders, the interest of the customers, which also include the depositors. And then we really actively, and I've seen that a number of forums debate, is this in the interest of those various constituents? And I think, once again, it's building up and maintaining credibility and trust. I think all banks, there's probably not a single bank that has missed or been free of a scandal or some type of misconduct case. But I do think that once, the other thing I'd like to encourage is that we learn from best practices. I think the regulators sometimes are reticent for understandable reasons. I mean, certainly FINMA, because there's only two large banks to share what best practices are. I would really encourage the regulatory community to do so, right? So be it in the area of developing technology, and if you see things that actually work, or what you were saying about climate change in that, we still don't yet see, you know, risk, effective, you know, identification, risk identification. Programs to address climate change sustainability. I think if, you know, anonymising obviously the institution, but I do think that regulators can help play a role to see how and to your question, how do institutions effectively balance these varying interests? I like the idea of anonymising institutions when there's two of them in Switzerland, but would you agree that this is a good way forward? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, and we have a broad agreement within the Basel Committee with that is a global committee. So, I mean, many of the topics that we have now alluded to here are on the table and discussed regularly, and there are also working groups in different areas. Well, we are nearly out of time. I just wondered if I might be able to put one last question to the pair of you. Just coming back to the big picture, I suppose, of the way in which banks behave and how differently, how cleaned up they have been since the financial crisis, and just to ask again a provocative question, I suppose, but if you think of the many pressures on bank profitability that there are today, not least for ultra low rates, the higher compliance costs that we've talked about, but to what extent were profits pre-crisis, those super, super high profits in many cases, the result of unethical behaviour? Because we've had, you know, lot of the scandals have been as a result of discovering things that were inflating profits, misselling of products, scamming the system by manipulate and libor, all of these things. To what extent should we be accepting that the fact that profits are low now is a result of the fact that the sector is not cheating so much, or maybe not at all, I don't know. Yeah, I mean, if you go back to the financial crisis, it was very much excessive risk taking at the time. So, and then we have had individual scandals, if I can say so, but I mean, it's fair also to say that it's not all banks who have, I mean, we have seen scandals in, there have been quite many banks who have recovered and they have improved also when it comes to the governance issues. When it comes to the profits in the European banking sector, I mean, I can compare it with the Swedish banks, for example, and they are doing much more, so they are also in a very low interest environment. They are under the same requirement as the European banks more or less. I think there is, I mean, and we as supervisors have a dialogue with the banks. There is probably some over banking here in Europe, so there is a need for restructuring of the banking sector, but there is also some banks have still rather high costs, so there is a cost to income issue, which they also have to work upon. Then, of course, I mean, it's been taken some time to reduce the MPLs, but we are on our way now, but that has been a cost, of course, for many banks in many countries, but that is an investment for the future. I mean, in order to make sure that we will have a banking system here that can support the real economy, I think that is what we really want to reach. And, Somia, finally to put the similar question to you in a slightly different way. When you're thinking about controlling things within Credit Suisse, if you see a very profitable bit of the business, do your antenna go up and do you think, hang on, is someone cheating here? That's not my first assumption. I think it's a question of, I mean, there are many factors that you would look at, right? I mean, one NDB was a case where you looked at the fees that Goldman received, and it was so out of proportion, right, to analogous fees that other institutions had received for very similar activity. But nobody seemed to raise a red flag. And no one, yeah, that's another thing, right, so it's the escalation and transparency. So that clearly, I mean, there are outliers, right, which would clearly raise red flags, I think, so that's something. But when you talk about going to your first question about profitability, profitability is also a product of cost. Clearly, as we've discussed, banks, if you look at the amount of spend on compliance, this is a good thing, right? The amount of spend in not only in terms of resources but infrastructure and data analytics and everything. So in order to hopefully not repeat the problems of the past but also to hopefully also with artificial intelligence and other mechanisms, be able to, and behavioral indicators, be able to look into the future and try to prevent problems from materializing, financial institutions are spending a lot to address that, and that's also obviously affecting profitability, as well as, which you talked about earlier, the plethora of regulatory change. Yeah, but hopefully it will come good in the end. Let's hope for that. Please, everyone, we're out of time, but do join me in thanking my panel.


human pinballs ricocheting between ever smaller slivers of the source without any of the basics for survival but nowhere in Gaza is safe. The brutality perpetrated by Hamas can never justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people. The true path to ensure peace is only through supporting Israel's mission absolutely not to call for a ceasefire. And secondly, distinguished colleagues for those of you calling for a ceasefire it is crucial that you remember the facts. On October 6th there was a ceasefire in place but on October 7th Hamas broke the ceasefire with an unprovoked invasion of thousands of Hamas Nazis into Israel. And calling for a ceasefire is precisely what ensures that this will continue. A ceasefire means that the suffering of all will carry on. A ceasefire cements Hamas's control of Gaza but even more than that calling for a ceasefire sends a clear message that Hamas is forgiven for their deliberate atrocities and Hamas's oppression of Gazans is given a green light by the international community. And we also heard a short while ago from the USM representative there at the UN Security Council let's take a listen. This council's failure to condemn Hamas's October 7th terrorist attacks including its acts of sexual violence and other unthinkable evils is a serious moral failure. And it underscores the fundamental disconnect between the discussions that we have been having in this chamber and the realities on the ground. An undeniable part of that reality is that if Israel unilaterally laid down its weapons today as some member states have called for Hamas would continue to hold hostages. Women and children, elderly men while the United States strongly supports a durable peace in which both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security we do not support calls for an immediate ceasefire. Gentlemen, so it does seem like the Americans at least understand what Israel is dealing with and also what it takes to take down Hamas despite the civilian suffering as a result. That is correct for the moment not that I think that the US any US administration would agree to what you suggested earlier that we might have to stay in Gaza for five years I don't think that will be an option. This is what happened in Operation Defense. Yeah, no, no, I mean you said it was going to be a long process and I'm not sure that Israel will enjoy the freedom to do this. I'm not saying that it's good or bad but I think that's a fact of life. I think the diplomatic window that the Americans see is bigger, longer than the rest of the world and currently what is happening at the UN is that they have postponed the vote and they're going to negotiate the text try to avoid an American veto or the Americans I suspect will want not to have a resolution at all but to have some kind of statement by the President of the Security Council or some other kind of announcement which needs, it necessitates a unanimous vote by the 15 members. And Amir, there's a lot of talk about what the Americans want in terms of a deadline for the Israeli operation. There's some reports saying America, Israel should end this operation by the end of this month. Something that is completely unrealistic, obviously, for the Israeli operation. What do you see as realistic in terms of the IDF ability to take over Hamas completely in Gaza? How long will that take? I want to say that Gutierrez is at this grace from day one and talking about the UN because all of Gaza is a war zone. All of Gaza has tunnels, other explosives, IEDs everywhere. The only way to secure the Gazans is to open the Egyptian border and let them at least for a certain period of time to go out to another part of the Sanai Peninsula. I don't recall any place in the world where you have a war. You have refugees and they are locked in the area. Nobody lets them out. In Ukraine, 40 million people left to Ukraine. In Syria, 11 million people left Syria. The Gazans are the only ones that nobody cares about the fact that they are locked inside the war zone and they cannot go out and nobody is pressuring Egypt, saying open the border and let the women, the children go out and get humanitarian aid. So I think the whole approach globally is wrong. Now talking about the IDF, I think it will take at least at least two months more to really take control of the whole Gaza Strip and then it might take at least a year. This is the army's assessment to clean the Gaza Strip from all this terror infrastructure. And even then, you'll have to remain even if Israel then goes out not from the Egyptian border but from the other areas that we'll have to operate, go in and out just as we do in the West Bank. So many problems for Israel to solve unfortunately both militarily and politically in Gaza at the end of this war, Daniel and Sheikh Amir thank you both very much for being with us on this Shabbat night and that's it for now from that 24 News Desk more updates at the top of the hour. She stands at the entrance to the military base in Tel Aviv opposite the Israeli center alone with her sign or with her daughter Noam holding the picture passes by do not know how to deal with the difficult caption. Usually, they try not to meet her gaze make a small detour or pass her by as if they didn't see sometimes, someone stops. Her father and son were killed 50 years apart. So now it's a small family of only women from Moshev Agot in southern Israel. The grandmother sits on the balcony chain smoking. I see him all the time. I don't know. I can't get it out of my eyes. He can't talk to me but I'm constantly talking to him. He really loved me, this grandson. I loved him. I remember they came to pick him up with an open truck. Yum Kippur? A Yum Kippur. A Yum Kippur. A Yum Kippur. A Yum Kippur. A Yum Kippur. A Yum Kippur. Probably afternoon and that's it. I haven't seen him since. I've been an orphan since the age of seven. What did it do to your little family? Dismantled it. Made that family very sad. My father was a very happy man with a sense of humor. I always say I lost a father but I also lost a mother because after something like that it was very difficult for her and there was a farm here that needed managing and she had to continue to manage it somehow.  Yael, a social worker remained on the same farm as her mother Mina and father Yitzchak. She gave birth to a son door after two daughters. Door grew up to be a child of values focused a quiet leader very compassionate towards the weak and vulnerable he identified around him. After the morning period Yael began rummaging through the notebooks that Door had written for himself. I am naturally endowed with a desire for excellence. I came into the world to work and not waste time. I'm going to do something great with this life I have been given and do as much good as possible in the world. Grandpa Yitzchak who fell in battle was always there in the background. We grow at home and in the land that was here. There are trees here in the farm that he planted 60 years ago and they're here so it is so present it is here here in the Moshev there is a tombstone with his name on it we as small grandchildren from age zero I remember laying a reef together with Door when I was an officer and when Door was an officer last year we also saluted grandfather and the flag on Memorial Day he was a Quran He wrote Why am I going to fight? He writes I want to contribute in the best way possible to the country as my grandfather Yitzchak contributed and my family after him He enlisted in the Egoz unit Were you anxious? Of course I was anxious I mean as far as I am concerned there are three possibilities either he will be killed or he will be wounded or he will get PTSD like there was no way he was going to come out of it okay How could you send a child to the army like this? I worked on myself to calm down all the time but these were my thoughts On Wednesday night at 10 o'clock I left home for a moment and suddenly I saw two officers in uniform I understood it once but still wait maybe it wasn't for me and I asked who are you working for? He asked me are you Yael? I said yes and then I collapsed I heard her screaming screams of terror and I was sure there were terrorists here and that I was going to see them shoot my mother that's the thought I had so I ran outside with the phone and I saw two officers and you don't need more than that to understand And this is the same news that my mother received 50 years ago on the same sidewalk more or less in the same yard my father was killed on the 23rd of the Hebrew month of Tishrei Dor was killed in the night between the 23rd and the 24th I mean I don't know a creepy coincidence and how did your mother react? She is in shock she's been in shock ever since she doesn't talk too much depression barely eats barely functions he's in front of my eyes the child he does not leave me immediately after the morning period she started her protest why? because I think the failure could have been avoided this disgrace could have been avoided whoever fights to be in power is responsible a week ago we stood with a sign on Caspi Street in Jerusalem near the billionaire's houses where Benjamin Netanyahu has lived since the beginning of the war she and that agent started coming out and they didn't know what to do with me they looked lowered their heads left came back at some point you would have to come out they tried to move me away I didn't agree they don't know how to behave in front of me they don't know what to do with me I come to them with the truth in their faces hey weren't you concerned that you were mixing bereavement with politics but in the end it is related it's connected my bereavement is related to politics and I come out with a sign not to shock and okay the price I paid there will be more prices for more people if this government continues to exist because it does not see the citizens even today no one came during the morning period no member of the government nor the funerals the prime minister's convoy enters the headquarters I hope he saw me if it was him you are a social worker so you know the stages of grief so maybe this is one of the stages anger you need to take it out on someone but it's beyond that I can be angry at door who went against me I can be angry with myself for allowing him for not fighting it I can be angry at the army I can be angry as a child I was angry at the army that my father was killed and stuff like that but I think there is something much bigger here it's anger out of concern for our future here my mother grew up in a tragic home and she told me our home will not be sad we will live and these are words that came during the morning period during this initial shock and I take them with me and I think this whole struggle is so that we will live we'll live in security unity and peace with whomever lives with us here at least people live in this country and we'll strive to make it good this is a war to make it good here in the Reutri habitation hospital in Tel Aviv Eyal Yonk from Kibbutz Al-Umim continues his battle battle which started on October 7 and is still not ended that day began with a missile attack just like many other residents of the south Eyal rushed to the safe room it was too quiet for me so I checked my phone again and I saw about 20 messages on the same group and one of the messages was clearly one of my neighbor that is also in the immediately respond group said terrorist inside the Kibbutz on motorcycles everyone to go to the armory to take their weapons and gear so I told my wife there's something unusual inside the Kibbutz going inside the Kibbutz and I need to go out Eyal found out that the terrorist infiltrated the Kibbutz and killed some of the Thai and Nepali workers when he came out to rescue his neighbor who was shot by terrorists he realized that the situation was even worse than he thought I saw about 16 terrorists running like soldiers like we are trained in basic training in pairs with distances between each pair so if we shoot them we won't hit everyone and I could count about 16 terrorists running towards us and with the other three it was about at least 20 terrorists coming to the Kibbutz when my friend got back we said to each other we need to go to a better place and just when we went on the high ground over the stairs the stones one terrorist saw us we didn't know he was already there he shot us first he shot my friend in his leg and I got a ricochet from the bullet inside my cheek here and it went down under the ear and stayed there I shot him back I killed him he lay down there was another terrorist there a few seconds later I got shot in an I felt pain in my back luckily Ayal was not killed he was evacuated to Soroka Hospital in Bersheva where he stayed in intensive care his next stop was Rehut Hospital Ayal came with an amazing motivation to improve he was working more than he had to work every day so it's a rehabilitation process is really a story of success because in rehabilitation we don't aim only to function for me Ayal is a true story of a successful rehabilitation process the Ayal and his family moved to a hotel in the coastal city of Natania he says he misses the life in the Kibbutz in the meantime he's focused on healing himself and watching his favorite football team Tottenham Hotspur he even got special videos from Manor Solomon the Israeli who plays in the team I want to say thank you for everything he does for Israel that is not afraid to be active and publish things and take a stand for Israel I felt it was very good for me in my soul and my head to see what's happening and be a bit running away for two hours running away from the news from my injury because when I watch football even though we don't always play well for the last three games still it's very good for me because that's normal for me to watch the games to be happy to be disappointed to feel like normal more than 50 days after October 7 Real continues his treatment and hope to be fully recovered soon he is still expected to have more surgery to remove one of the bullets in his back this is just another story of courage and survival out of many we heard since the Hamas onslaught this is not the Super Mars I'm putting a date on Gauz 18 okay but it's a super important volunteer job that could mean the difference between life and death so we do what they say and it gets done and we save a life everything saves a life that's why we're here during times of peace and even more so during war the Tela Shomer IDF base is the hub where all the medical supplies and other non-combat support tasks fuel the entire IDF I love seeing all these people volunteering for Israel they are coming from out of the country and don't really holy work here which is why this place exists so the fatigues came with the ticket what brings me here is that after October 7th we all I think everyone here felt the need to be here just where we had to be for myself I was doing a whole bunch of work fighting against the insane explosion of anti-Semitism that's happening everywhere even in our little city of Winnipeg but it didn't feel like it was enough I wanted to do something physical really to help on Israel after October 7th lawyer Lawrence Pinsky of Winnipeg and dozens of other volunteers he did the call and hopped on the first plane to Israel that they could to participate in SARL volunteers for Israel a robust non-profit with an international reputation well I've been packing not right now but earlier morphine and ketamine and amputation bandages and serious stuff and it gives you a sense especially when you see how many we're packing what our hyaline are really facing like everyone else that is here our desire to help Israel in any way we can in addition to donations and pardon my emotion and we're here to physically help Israel in this time of special need my zady came to fight in the war of independence in 48 and if I get to do a 10th of what he did for the state of Israel and he did it for all of us and he did it so it would be here for me if I could do a 10th of what he did I'll be very proud I have two sons right now who are in Miloim one of them up north one of them in the Merkaz and uh you know I have a son-in-law who's up north SARL which is a Hebrew acronym meaning service for Israel has recruited over 150,000 volunteers from over 30 countries since its inception 40 years ago I graduated college at the time of the Six Day War in 67 I wanted to come then my family was not zionistic I knew they wouldn't they would probably commit me if I came I heard about Surrell when I was visiting my son in Tineck, New Jersey and I said oh my god I can do today but I couldn't do 50 years ago this is now Rochelle Kimmel of Borough Park, Brooklyn's fourth SARL volunteer mission and for Dina Wolfe who's originally from Manchester, England SARL volunteers have already become her family this is your first day volunteering do you feel like you've known her forever already? I just think she is just amazing she's an inspiration and I'm just in admiration everybody is doing as much as they can but you some of us have that feeling it's just not enough so when my sister decided to come from Manchester to do SARL I jumped on the bound with the hate and vitriol against Jewish people hitting a critical juncture around the world the existential fear is paralyzing we've been through an awful lot in the United Kingdom being Jewish there is an awful lot of antisemitism I had been racially hounded on social media I had had eggs thrown at my car Jenny Sadeh who was active on social media has been nearly silenced to the point that she's had to change her profile name and she even feels safer in Israel during wartime than in the UK I walk in the streets I hide my star of David what I'm trying to say is usually I'm very proud I'm very happy to wear my flag this time it's very scary I feel like I needed to be here and I'm very glad I am it's been very rewarding as you can see men and women of all ages and nationalities are united for a common cause fulfilling our soldier's medical needs while also filling their souls in the Jewish homeland it's very disturbing my son said to me you're not going to want to listen to the news stations that you've been listening to when you come home and it's it's very depressing anybody who has the ability to be here should definitely take the plunge and come and this is where we need to be it's our country at the Tello Shomer IDF base Emily Francis, I-24 News when Avikai received the news that the hostage release deal was under way he finally found a reason to shave last time I got a haircut I was 16 you know now I allow myself to have a beard and such but generally a guy doesn't let me so I said in her honor at least I'll look normal I want it to be good let's hope I don't grow another beard by the time they come home a moment before he received the first phone call from the army representative accompanying him yes good we'll hold on good thanks that was the officer company and what did she say that they're not on the list what should we do well there'll be another day what can I do since the nightmare that overtook the Brodech family on that black Sabbath October 7th Avikai has fought in every way he could to return his wife and his three young children from captivity in the first two days of the war he already began to grieve he was sure that his entire family had been murdered he confronted members of the Knesset in the studios spoke in Tel Aviv's hostages square and was interviewed by every media outlet in the world who wanted to hear his story it was a different day compared to the last few days everyone is tense these are new kind of days until now I was very active and suddenly I'm only with myself it's a case of waiting for the news that should come from Hamas at the end of the day I'm somewhat lucky to be included in the category of women and children some people are jealous of me that's horrible and it's horrible to think such a thought I'm happy and I berate myself Mikhai aren't you ashamed to be happy have you had the chance to think about what you would say to them I experienced a lot and discovered a lot of things about myself who can I tell these things to if not to Hagar I'm dying to hold her to tell her listen you do not believe my wife is with Hamas I have three children there because what business does Hagar have being with Hamas my wife with Hamas it's not Hagar I see her coming to me and saying listen Avichai you don't believe where I was I've been with Hamas for two months you won't believe it but then I think again and realize this will probably be a slightly different conversation I don't know the truth is I'm very afraid that's the truth when they return we'll have completed the first phase as far as I'm concerned the second phase I still worry about yesterday evening the social worker called me she said to me listen Avichai there are studies on people who have returned from captivity and there may be all kinds of things that they they won't respond and won't want to take a shower maybe and they'll have a hard time being around other people and maybe they'll even avoid contact suddenly in that one moment it all became clear we still have another long process ahead of us and I don't even know how we'll end maybe I'll collapse maybe I won't be able to bear it and maybe they will be different from what they were before I don't even know what I'm getting I'm getting some maybe a new family there's a song by Leonard Cohen which he wrote during the Yom Kippur war lover, lover, lover and in the song he turns to God and tells God I want to start all over again please let me God tells him listen I gave you everything you chose what to do with it you had all the tools and you chose to screw everything up that's your problem you know maybe now that I think about it it's possible I got another chance they told me listen Avichai you start from scratch you took away your family and now you're getting them back come show us what you plan to do Avichai fought in the stand-by unit of Pfar Azad and came across a terrorist squad who fired at him with RPGs and threw grenades he would


The study aimed to quantify IgA, an IgG specific to sacramuses cerevisiae, ASCA, Inquirescent Crohn's disease, CD, and ulcerative colitis, UC, correlate the production of these antibodies with patients' inflammatory response and disease clinical presentation, and conclude that ASCA could be irrelevant by a marker of CD presentation and residual inflammation. This article was authored by Marillo Duarte Silva, Poliana Cristina Afonso, Patricia Race De Cesar, and others.


This program is designed to help employers and employees understand what is required in the standard that applies to the control of energy during maintenance and servicing of equipment and machinery. Employers are required to develop proper lockup procedures and provide protected materials and training for their employees. This program also presents valuable knowledge that can prevent injuries and death. Employees who run or repair machines are usually well protected. Employers wear personal protective equipment such as safety face shields and safety shoes. They guard the machine's hazard points, but when something goes wrong with the equipment and the worker has to get into the machinery, we want to be sure that the machine won't accidentally start up while they're in or around it. To prevent this, a proper lockout-tagout procedure for all sources of energy can be developed to protect workers from the unexpected or unwanted operation of systems, processes, or machinery. This is presently required by the Washington State Administrative Code, WAC, 296-24-110. Lockout is more frequently thought of in connection with electrical switches, because that's where they're commonly used. However, lockout-tagout systems shall be used to inert all energy. The lockout program shall address all types of energy. The WAC standard requires the following sources to be locked out, electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, chemical, thermal, gravitational, and stored energy for all of these. The present code requirements identify certain conditions that do not come under the lockout-tagout program. These conditions are normal production operations, unless personnel exposure exists as a result of the removal or bypass of a guard, or having any part of an employee's body in the point of operation of a machine, or any associated danger during a machine cycle. Work on cord and plug connected equipment provided that all energy is controlled by unplugging the equipment from the energy source, and the plug is under the exclusive control of the person performing the service. This means the person must be in possession, or within arm's length, and line of sight of the cord and plug, or locked out. Hot-tap operations involving transmission and distribution systems such as gas, steam, water, or petroleum products. Construction, agriculture, power transmission, and other industries will comply with their existing vertical standards. That standard will be supplemented as necessary to meet the full requirements of WAC 296-24 110. The lockout-tagout program requirements will include a written program, a statement of intended use, the classification of personnel involved, the training of personnel, the knowledge of lockout-tagout devices, the enforcement of procedures, and the inspections of the system. A written program shall clearly and specifically outline the scope, purpose, authorization, rules, techniques, training, and inspection. Program elements utilized for the control of hazardous energy, and the means to enforce compliance include, but are not limited to the following, a specific statement of the intended use of the procedure, specific procedural steps for shutting down, isolating, blocking, and securing machines or equipment to control hazardous energy, specific procedural steps for the placement, removal, and transfer of lockout or tagout devices and the responsibility for them, specific requirements for testing a machine or equipment to determine and verify the effectiveness of lockout and tagout devices and other energy control measures. Each machine or piece of equipment must have a written procedure for the control of energy except where all of the following conditions are met. There is no potential for stored, residual, or reaccumulation of stored energy. If there is a single source of energy readily identifiable when isolated, when a lockout will completely de-energize and deactivate, when a lockout is actually accomplished with a single device, which is under control of an authorized employee, if service or maintenance does not create hazards for others, no accidents took place in this particular machine or equipment. There are three types of people referred to in this program. Authorized persons are designated by an employer to lock out machinery or equipment and are the only ones who may do so. However, there are no restrictions on the number of people who may be designated as the authorized person. Affected persons are employees working in the machine area and the machine operator not designated to repair or service equipment. Other persons are all other employees. The employer shall provide training to all employees to ensure that purpose and function of energy control are understood, knowledge and skills for safe application are received, and usage and removal of energy control are understood. The employer shall certify that employee's training has been accomplished and is being kept up to date. The certification shall contain each employee's name and dates of training. The training shall include the following. Each authorized employee shall receive training in the recognition of applicable hazardous energy sources, the type and magnitude of the energy available in the workplace, and the methods and means necessary for energy isolation and control. Each affected employee shall be instructed in the purpose and use of the energy control procedure. All other employees whose work operations are or may be in an area where energy control procedures may be utilized, shall be instructed about the procedure and about the prohibition relating to the attempts to restart or re-energize machines or equipment which are locked or tagged out. Retraining shall be provided for all authorized and affected employees whenever there is a change in the following, job assignments, machines or equipment, processes that present a new hazard, and energy control procedures. Additional training shall be conducted whenever a periodic inspection reveals shortcomings or whenever the employer has reason to believe that there are deviations from or inadequacies in the employee's knowledge or use of the energy control procedure. Retraining must re-establish proficiency and introduce newer revised control methods and procedures as necessary. Protective material and hardware generally used for lockout and tagouts are locks, tags, chains, self-locking fasteners, wedges, key blocks and adapter pins. All of this protective material and hardware will be provided by the employer. All items must be singularly identified, durable, the only device used for the program and not used for any other purpose. These devices must be standardized within the facility. The best lockout is with a key type padlock. When more than one person is involved, each shall use their own padlock and tag. At times, multiple devices that can hold six or more locks are used to accommodate all locks. This procedure ensures that a switch or control cannot be activated until everyone has removed their lock. Only an authorized person may actually lock out the system. Lockbox procedures are most useful and are used in applications such as multiple crew and crafts or multiple employers working on the same job, machine, system, complex machine or systems with multiple controls and the controls are in locations widely separated or remote from the actual work site. Lockout programs require an identification tag to be used with the lock. The tag must indicate the name, date and reason for the lockout. The tag shall be durable, able to withstand environment and exposure, and standardized throughout the workplace. Locks and tags shall be used together. The implementation of a lockout or tagout system shall be performed only by authorized employees. Authorized employees need to be notified that a machine is or will be shut down. A method of lockout would follow these steps. Ensure the on-off button is in the off or closed position. Lock the main disconnect switch, valve or lever and mark it with a tag. If the lockout involves high voltage, an electrician may be required. Sources of energy must be blocked, shut off or disconnected. All disconnecting means must be legibly marked to indicate which machines or systems they control. If more than one person is working on a machine, each must be an authorized person and attach their lock and tag to the disconnect. Each lock shall be identified to the person placing it by name, clock number or color code. Never use a button, on-off switch, console key or remote control as the lockout point. Equipment has been known to operate or short out with these devices in the off position. The only place for a tagout is at the main power disconnect. To check out the lockout, be sure the proper disconnect has been selected. Recheck the system to be sure the disconnect cannot be switched back on. Try to turn on the machine controls. If the energy is cut off, return the machine or system controls to the off position. Current standards require all electrical equipment to have disconnects. Check the machine or system for any residual or stored energy. Make certain it is rendered harmless, blocked, pin, chalk, etc. Check for other sources that could present a hazard like suspended parts or chemical reactions. After the work is completed, all guards have been replaced and employees have moved to a safe location. Make sure that each authorized employee is responsible for removing their lock. Employees do not re-enter the danger area without re-attaching a lock.  The authorized person shall inspect the equipment to be sure that it is clear, reassembled, tools picked up and guards replaced. Lastly, affected employees must be notified of the removal of lockout devices. Personnel must be thoroughly indoctrinated to the seriousness of violating lockout rules. A lock left on could cause an employee to be called back to the work site, or workers may delay work until someone verifies he or she is safe. It is the responsibility of each worker to follow the lockout procedures exactly. Under normal circumstances, a lock should be removed only by the authorized employee to whom the lock is assigned. In an emergency, someone else's lock can be removed only after procedures are established for emergency lock removal. The procedures would involve the approval of management to ensure the safety of all personnel and locating the missing authorized person. The plant manager or designated person shall be responsible for cutting the lock. The missing person must have knowledge of the removed lock before resuming work. The supervisor should be responsible for properly executed departmental lockouts and the adequacy of the lockout procedure. When changing shifts, the relief person will attach his or her lock prior to the relieved person's lock being removed. The disconnect will always be protected during the procedure. Locks are a way to immobilize unattended vehicles or construction equipment during servicing or repair. Key removal from the ignition switch of motorized vehicles or equipment is one method of a lockout. Lockouts are used to control such things as fluids and gases and also on valves. Sometimes chains are also needed to implement the lockout. To isolate tanks or other confined spaces fed by piping, close the supply side valve to relieve the pressure. Start a blank in the flange and it should be locked in to prevent unauthorized removal. Drain and vents may be required to prove a lockout. Additional lockouts may be required to isolate the flange prior to blank removal to prevent against escaping fluids or gases that can cause considerable injury. Vent and bleeder should be installed in all lines behind the primary control valves in piping containing hazardous materials and make sure they're locked open. Personnel working with hazardous materials should always wear personal protective equipment. The employer shall conduct a periodic inspection of energy control procedures to ensure the procedural requirements of the standard are being followed. The inspection shall be at least annually by an authorized employee other than the one utilizing the energy control procedure being inspected. All deficiencies must be corrected. Certification of the inspection should include the identification of the machine or equipment, date of inspection, employees included in the inspection, and the person performing the inspection. There may be occasions when you must run a machine under lockout procedures. Some of these conditions are while making final adjustments, removing production materials or threading in carrier belts and ropes. Extreme care must be taken at these times. When testing, positioning or performing running adjustment procedures and where lockouts are temporarily removed the following sequence must be followed. Clear the machine of tools and equipment. Remove employees from the area. Energize. Test their position. And lastly, de-energize all systems and reapply energy control measures. When lockout or tagout is required by an outside contractor, the on-site and outside employers must inform each other of their respective lockout or tagout procedures. The outside employer shall assure that all outside personnel shall comply with all the requirements of the on-site employer's lockout-tagout control program. Any deviation is not permissible without specific prior approval of the on-site employer. An employer may use a tagout system in lieu of a lockout system provided the following conditions are met. The tagout device is attached to where a lockout would have been. The employees receive additional training. The tagout must provide the same level of employee protection as a lockout. This requires additional monitoring to ensure lockout tagout is not bypassed or overridden. Additional isolating measures are needed to remove the circuit element, locking of control switch, opening of additional disconnects, or removing a valve or handle. The special requirements that these tags must have are that they must be attachable by hand, have a self-locking tie which is non-releasable, and have a minimal locking strength of 50 pounds which is at least equivalent to a one-piece all-environment tolerant nylon cable test. The employee applying the tag must be identified on it. The tags will give warning against hazardous conditions such as do not start, do not open, do not close, do not energize, or do not operate. Refer to WAC 296-24-140. Employees must be trained in the limitations of tags. They must understand that tags are warning devices only. They must not be removed, bypassed, or ignored. They must be legible, and able to withstand environmental conditions to which exposed. Tags must be securely attached to avoid being inadvertently or accidentally removed. Tags may evoke a false sense of security, so employees must not disturb them unless they are the authorized person. A lockout or tagout is an easy way to prevent unauthorized use of equipment. It's also a good idea to use a lockout at home to keep children away from power tools. The lockout tagout program can be a nuisance, but with total compliance, at all times, it can prevent injuries, save lives, and prevent damage to property. This program was developed by the State of Washington Department of Labor and Industries Division of Industrial Safety and Health. It's one of the many programs the division has to offer employers and employees to help them establish a safe and helpful workplace. For further information about this subject, call your local Washington State Department of Labor and Industries Division of Industrial Safety and Health Consultation Services.


What's going on everyone Sam here with late in sports cards rip in 21 Panini prism football first off the line photo one box break number 36 Random team style There's a look again at your random results as always find those on the website under the results tab as well as the link in chat So good luck here everybody. Let's do it up really quick before I forget I want us to get Bowman in Inception University again and do a random hit style just so I can walk you type it Good luck here everybody Quinn minors, there's ooh nice. That's gonna be a Justin Fields hyper to 175. There you go, uh, Chicago very nice Frank Darby silver rookie Where you say? Let's think it was 70 a spot in this nice, we've got a Forest cam will come up here. Ernest Jones ratio on Slater. It's gonna be Jalen Darden another rookie nice this time to 15 8 of 15 Silver TJ won't Sign you up Reverend Jordan Travis ETN nice. All right, we've got Non rookie for the Jags that is Joe Schober nice nine of ten Rats on that 249 Alan Robinson and CMC Pucks legend Jalen Darden absolutely bucks legend Jalen Darden Blue shimmer coming up here Gary Brightwell nice Justin Fields rookie rookie for the Colts is Deo Odimbo 13 of 25 blue shimmer nice one Colts another rookie nice and Peyton Turner green scope rookie auto 275 here go Saints Luciana Thomas Pat Fryer muth Noah Gray Seahawks Non rookie is Russ Nice Russell Wilson to four of 25 grats on that see out Got Bradley Chubb to 225 Silver Debo. I'll have you I'm gonna tell you recap the shimmers Shimmers Layer round tree silver Joe Thysman Washington Wave coming up here to 60 DeMonta Smith nice Nick Bolton gonna be Niners Non rookie Rahim Moser nice 16 of 60 and Stafford fireworks Oh, yes, he is you're right. You're right. You're right. You're right. Oh nice. We got a Navy camera I like to call it the digital camera to to out well That is Packers Brent Favre Gonna be 25 of 25 Fabre To red shimmers in this one Frank Darby Nishon right first up is gonna be Niners Non rookie George Kittle nice one there tight end University five of 35 Got purple Denzel Ward to 125 and Noah Gray red shimmer auto for the chiefs five of ten nice one there That's on that sheeps see one more one more shimmer in this Green shimmer to five Trevor Lawrence a red shimmer coming up again Helen Mond Marcus Stevenson that is gonna be Giants non rookie Kyle Rudolph nine of 35 Hyper Collar Murray 175 for the Cardinals and Silver Derek Brown Amar Kenan Wong we use her to Patrick search and purple ice Odell Beckham Jr. Poor's ACL to 2225 The new Raven Odell Beckham Junior Pumped actually Better than anything. We've got that's I look at it. Yeah, something's better than absolutely nothing. Yeah, which is what we've been putting out there, so J.C. Horn pen a suit red wave LT to 149 and Break is Justin Herbert. Alright guys do a quick recap of the break Thanks again for getting this filled up. These are always fun Kyle Rudolph George Kittle to 35 there's a Justin Fields hyper to 175 for the Bears day Odeon bow to 25 as well as a Russell Wilson gold shimmer Joe Schobert to Ten there's no a greater 10 on the red shimmer auto and Peyton Turner to 75 on the green scope I'll do it for the break guys. Thanks again for the fill up next is 10 bucks Tuesday


Okay, so with what we just learned it should be pretty straightforward on how to convert this problem to Kelvin, so to convert Celsius to Kelvin. You just remember add 273.15, the sig figs might be an issue I guess, but anyways if we did that it would be what 348.15 Kelvin and if we look at the number that we've been given it's got one digit after the decimal point remember adding sig figs so I want to round that last digit up so it's 348.15. That would be alright, pretty straightforward. Okay, so I think that the thing that you want to remember is to remember the sig fig rules for addition. If you don't know go back to that because you got to do it to that one decimal point.


Well, I'm lucky enough to live in an area where there's probably too much cell coverage in Los Angeles, but recently we went up to Yellowstone National Park and up in a Montana and I found out there's areas in the United States where you can't use your cell phone. So I've stopped by the booth of SureCall and I'm talking to Eric Mercel right now. How you doing today? I'm doing well. How are you? Does the devices we're about to talk about, is this going to help that poor person out in Montana? It'll help you out, not just in Montana, but also in urban areas, your downtown big buildings might be blocking coverage as well. I've had that problem too. So this is audio and video, so as you talk through this, we'll have video, but I also may do more descriptions of it. So you've got two products to talk about here that's going to boost the cell signal in a car. Is that correct? Yes. Right. Should we start with the N range? We'll start with the N range and then we'll go into the bigger one. So SureCall makes a pretty wide range of products first off. We do a lot of RV, we do a lot of mobile, but mobile has been so popular now with the connected car and the connected world. So we've got two products here that we're really showcasing. The first product is our N range product and it's a very, very simple booster to install. This particular product right here is your antenna and your amplifier. It's a shark fin for your roof. It absolutely is. So this product is mounted on your roof, it's magnetized so it's going to be able to stick to the roof very well. One cable, simple installation that's going to go right to your cradle, which your phone is going to stick to. You power this up, it powers up your amplifier via coax and now you've got service within the vehicle. Now how big of a signal boost is this going to get at me? It depends on the area that you're in, but these amplifiers by FCC and carrier rules are only allowed to be 50 dB worth of gain. So that's how much gain we're going to be able to add to the service. Holy cow, 50 dB, that's healthy. That's very healthy. It definitely keeps you connected when you're more remote. Now I understand by speaking to the previous gentleman that this cradle that you're going to stick your phone to, this is the only phone that's going to get the signal boost with the N range, correct? Yes. It's a single user device with a retail of 3.99, it meets a mark for us to be able to get into more people's cars to keep them connected. At the very least, at least you've got navigation going on one phone, right? Absolutely. We have a little Timmy as in the backseat playing Fortnite, but that's okay. Timmy needs less screen time anyway. It's up for us. We're the ones driving, we're in control. There you go. So these are really thin cables, you just run those down around the edge of the car frame and around the gasket, like into the door? Sure. Some people will move the gaskets and do more of a permanent install, but the beauty about this product is it's very transferable.  Oh really? Okay. So very, very simple to be able to utilize. Very good. Okay, so now I've got a family of 12 in the car and they all want to get online. We're going to move up to the big boy here, right? We are. The big girl? I'm not sure. The Fusion to go 3.0 is a little bit of a different beast. It's still very simple to install and uninstall if you want to be able to move from vehicle to vehicle, but you notice a couple different things. You've got a separate amplifier, a separate outdoor antenna, or a donor line that's going to be able to pull that signal in. And then the biggest difference is when we look at our internal antenna itself, the inside antenna is going to be able to fill an entire cab for you to be able to do what you said earlier, provide service for everybody in the vehicle. Okay, so describing this to people, this time it's not a shark fan, it's a, I don't know, a unicorn nose that says stick up. This is, again, magnetic. Yes. Runs down through coax. Then that comes into this amplifier that looks like a giant heat sink to me. Yep. Let me lift that up. So it's got DC 5 volts in and it's got a coax input, coax output. Then that goes to the internal antenna that's going to re-broadcast inside the car. Correct. Is that correct? And then the antenna looks just like it's like a business car, just all the bigger it is. Yeah, it's pretty narrow. We want to keep it as low profile as we possibly can. So we can keep what I want to call it the ambiance of the vehicle if you will. Right, right. Don't want to make it look nasty. So it looks like it's got Velcro. Any important placing in the car there? No. Just set it on the carpet? Set it on the ground? You could. The closer the better. It's a pretty low power antenna. So we do want to get it up closer. My personal vehicle, I put it right on my golf department. Oh, okay. That's a perfect spot. Got it. Got it. Got it. And so it floods the whole entire car. Okay, very cool. So here we go, 3.0, because it's got to have a 3.0. How much does that list for? 3.99. That's great. So where would people go to find the Sure-Call devices? You can buy our devices. You can learn about them on SureCall.com, but you can purchase it from a lot of our retail partners that are out there, e-tail, Amazon, Best Buy, things like that you can buy them for. Very cool. Well, this solves a real problem. Like I said, I wasn't real sympathetic until it happened to me and now it's, now I understand. So I know a lot of people are truck drivers that listen. RV drivers. That would be a great solution. Absolutely. All right, thank you very much for the interview. Thank you. Appreciate it.