Well, welcome, everyone. This is I am Christy bear and I'm the assistant executive director of the center on finance law and policy. Welcome to our first virtual blue bag lunch talk. These are monthly lunch talks that are given by you have them faculty and grad students from multiple schools. One of the really great things about the University of Michigan is that pretty much every sidewalk brings you to a top 10 school. And so this is in some ways a grand experiment for us I feel like we learned the most valuable lesson already which is that we probably need music or something when people are joining. I'm delighted the two are here. The format of this is going to be a little bit different. As I said, usually this is an in house kind of thing with faculty students staff and alumni gathered in a room at the law school. I am delighted that the covert prevents an opportunity presents an opportunity for us to open it up to all of you. So we are doing this in a meeting format so if you want to keep your cameras on your welcome to if you are over it you are definitely not required to. We are going to ask you to hold questions until the end. I have, I do have to do a little promo because this is just what I do. So the set on finance law and policy we have a conference that's coming up November 16 through 18 for our central bank of the future project this is going to be co sponsored with the San Francisco Fed. The registration is not quite available yet, but we'll be coming up soon. It will be a virtual conference over three days and if you're not already part of our mailing list then I hope that you will sign up. So maybe you could in the chat if you wouldn't mind to drop in the address on our website for them to sign up. In the meantime, I want to introduce you to Jeremy Cress. Oh, one last thing you should have gotten a notice already this meeting is going to be recorded so if that's not cool with you you need to bail right now. Cress is a an assistant professor at the Michigan Ross School of Business. He's a senior research fellow with the center on finance law and policy. He studies financial regulation he has lots of feelings about bank mergers and large banks merging with other banks. And so, and he is going to tell you about some of those today. So, with that, I am think what we'll do is go ahead and turn this over to Jeremy. I'm going to be monitoring the chat. And so, at the end, we'll pause and you'll have a chance to be called on and unmute yourself and ask questions. Or if you're not sure if your question is good or not then you should feel free to just put it in the chat to me and ask it for you. So, anyway, with that we'll go ahead and turn it over to Jeremy Cress. Thank you, Christie and thank you, everybody for being here just want to confirm you can see my slides about the case. I hope so if not please drop a note in the chat and I'll figure out what's going on. I'm very excited to be here. I'm so excited in fact that I shaved my covert beard for the first time so thank you for motivating me to want to look like a human being. Once again for the first time in six months. Thank you to Christie and Tracy for helping to organize and coordinate today. Thank you also to the center on finance law and policy for helping to sponsor this research, one of the CFL P's excellent research assistants, Sam heard help me throughout the course of the past academic year to get this research off the ground. So, this is truly a project that's been helped along the way by the CFL P and I'm excited to debut it here with you today. So is Christie mentioned I write about financial regulation and I typically focus on us banks, but I felt compelled to spend my summer thinking about and writing about foreign banks, because I think foreign banks are one of the big unsolved issues in financial regulation. So in the next few slides, foreign banks were a key cause of the 2008 financial crisis. And I don't think that US policymakers have adequately addressed the risks that foreign banks pose to the US financial system. However, which is still very much in draft form and I look forward to your feedback. In this paper I recommend alternative regulatory approaches that I think would better safeguard foreign banks and remain consistent with long standing international regulatory. So, let me start by briefly describing the foreign bank landscape. We'll be seeing a chart right now that depicts some of the most significant foreign banks and how they compare to the biggest US banks in terms of asset size. The focus of this paper is on these blue segments. The US operations of foreign banking organizations or FBOs. In other words, how foreign banks like MUFG and HSBC and BNP Paribas and Deutsche Bank and Barclays operate when they decide to operate in the United States. As you can see, this is a significant issue. Some of these foreign banks have blue segments they have blue operations that are equivalent in size to some major US banks like US Bank Corp and PNC and Capital One. Collectively, foreign banks today control about $4 trillion in US banking assets. About 20% of the entire US bank sector is comprised of foreign banks. So this is a significant issue and that's part of what motivated me to take a look at it. Let's establish some important background on how these banks do business when they operate in the United States. Generally speaking, there are two basic business models that a foreign bank can use when it operates in the US. The first business model is called the subsidiary model. So in this subsidiary model, a foreign bank like Deutsche Bank from Germany would come in and establish legal subsidiaries in the United States. So Deutsche Bank might have a US broker dealer subsidiary, otherwise known as an investment bank subsidiary. And it might have a US bank subsidiary. This is a separately capitalized depository institution that is incorporated in the United States. It has its own balance sheet. It has local management in the United States. It can accept retail deposits. It's insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and it is regulated just like any US bank is regulated. It just happens to be owned by a foreign company. So that's the subsidiary model. The alternative model is called the branch model. So in this case, the foreign banking organization doesn't have a standalone banking presence in the United States. It doesn't own a US bank. Instead, it comes in and it just opens a branch of the parent bank in the United States. So if Deutsche opens a branch in the United States, that branch is not allowed to accept retail deposits. And I cannot go put our checking account at Deutsche Bank's branch. That branch is not insured by the FDIC, but there are some regulatory advantages to Deutsche Bank in operating in this way with a branch. Most significantly, that branch of Deutsche Bank is not required to maintain capital in the United States. So there are some limitations to the branch model, but there are also some significant advantages to foreign banks of establishing branches rather than subsidiaries. I should note that these two models are not mutually exclusive. So many foreign banks, including Deutsche Bank, use both the subsidiary and the branch model simultaneously. So today Deutsche Bank has a US broker dealer subsidiary, US investment bank subsidiary. Deutsche Bank has a US bank subsidiary and it's got a US branch all at the same time. So it can pick and choose between these different models. Let me just pause for a moment having established that background, see if there are any preliminary questions before I move on. Okay, if you've got questions, feel free to drop them in the chat and or jump in. I'm happy to take questions as we go. All right, foreign banks have been operating in the United States for about 50 years. They began entering in earnest in the early 1970s. But their business strategies have changed very dramatically in the five decades that they've been operating here. I'm going to talk briefly about how foreign banks have evolved in the United States over time. When foreign banks first entered in the 1970s, they were very small, and they were subject only to state level regulation. As foreign banks began to grow, US banks began to complain that foreign banks weren't really being regulated and therefore they had an unfair competitive advantage over US banks. And as US banks complained, Congress paid attention and Congress reacted by passing the International Banking Act of 1978, which instituted some federal oversight of foreign banks, US operations, trying to equalize the regulatory treatment between foreign banks, US operations and US banks. In the 1980s and 1990s, foreign banking in the US was pretty boring. Foreign banks really focused just on traditional lending activities, lending to US customers, usually commercial and industrial type loans. And foreign banks got their funding for these lending activities, usually from their foreign parent companies. The Deutsche Bank parent company back in Germany would send a lot of financial resources to its US operations, and the Deutsche Bank US operations would then lend that money out to US customers. Very boring run of the mill business model. For a few instances of foreign bank misconduct in this period, a few high profile instances of fraud or money laundering by foreign bank operations. Congress reacted by passing the FIBSI, the Foreign Bank Supervision Enhancement Act in 1991 to try to crack down on that misconduct. But by and large, foreign banking in the 80s and 90s was very run of the mill, vanilla and boring. That all changed, though, in the early 2000s. In the early 2000s, foreign banks US operations shifted to a much riskier capital markets oriented strategy. So foreign banks would borrow in short term wholesale funding markets like the repo market and securities financing arrangements. And it would then invest that money, they would invest that money in capital markets instruments, mortgage backed securities derivatives.  Debt markets crashed. Foreign bank parent companies refused to shore up their US operations by contributing more capital to their US subsidiaries. And as a result, foreign banks ended up relying extensively on the Federal Reserve for emergency funding during the 2008 crisis. Foreign banks borrowed disproportionately more from the Federal Reserve compared to domestic banks during 2008. So big problems. And I think underappreciated problems in the foreign banking sector. Usually when people think about the 2008 crisis, right, the names that come to mind are AIG and Wacovia and countrywide right US financial institutions Lehman Brothers Bear Stearns. The stories that don't really get told told are the problems that Deutsche Bank UBS and Credit Suisse and other foreign banks cost. And we didn't see those high profile foreign bank failures in large part because foreign banks took advantage of that lending to try to weather the crisis. So big problems in 2008 with foreign bank US operations. The Federal Reserve responded post crisis by creating a rule called the intermediate holding company or IHC. The IHC rule says that a foreign bank with more than $50 billion in combined US assets has to create an intermediate holding company for its non branch assets. So that means that any US broker dealer subsidiary, any US bank subsidiary, any other non bank subsidiary that a large foreign bank has in the United States has to go underneath an intermediate holding company. And that intermediate holding company is then supervised and regulated just like a US bank holding company. So this intermediate holding company is now subject to capital requirements in the United States. It's subject to liquidity requirements in the United States. It's subject to risk management requirements in the United States. And the rationale for this rule, I think was twofold, right? This rule tried to do two things. One is it created a focal point for management and supervision of a foreign banks risks in the United States. Pre-crisis, you had foreign banks that had dozens of US subsidiaries and they were all kind of managed in silos. There was no nexus for the bank's management or for US supervisors to oversee the foreign banks US risks on an aggregate consolidated basis. The US holding company intermediate holding company requirement tries to change that by giving a focal point, one entity that consolidates all of the activities that the foreign bank is doing in the United States. And that allows the bank to manage those risks in US supervisors to oversee those risks on a consolidated basis. Right, so that was one rationale improves management and supervision. The other rationale has to do with requiring capital in the United States. Pre-crisis, this US bank subsidiary would have to maintain capital in the United States. But this broker dealer subsidiary and other non-bank subsidiaries of foreign banks really weren't subject to any meaningful prudential or safety and soundness regulation in the United States. By forcing these non-bank subsidiaries underneath an intermediate holding company and then subjecting this IHC to capital requirements, that forced foreign banks now to bring those non-bank subsidiaries within the prudential oversight regime to have to maintain capital against those risks. So, in theory, this IHC requirement very well intentioned aimed to solve some of the problems that plagued foreign banks leading up to 2008. However, there was a critical omission, I think, in the IHC requirement. The Federal Reserve decided to allow foreign branches to remain outside of the intermediate holding company. So, if a large foreign bank establishes a subsidiary in the United States, that subsidiary has to be placed underneath an intermediate holding company that's then subject to capital and liquidity requirements. If a foreign bank wants to establish a branch in the U.S. and be subject to lighter branch level regulation, it can still do that, even after the IHC requirement. So, foreign banks responded to this new IHC rule, which went into effect in 2016, exactly as you would have expected. Foreign banks responded by shifting assets out of their U.S. intermediate holding companies, which were subject to new regulations, and into their U.S. branches, which were generally exempt from those new rules. This is a classic case of what we call regulatory arbitrage. Foreign banks using that IHC branch distinction to their advantage. So, you can see here I pulled some data on some of the largest foreign banks, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, and Barclays. You can see in the solid lines representing their IHC assets post 2016 going down very dramatically as they shifted assets out of their IHCs. You can see with the dotted lines, their branch assets went up by almost the same amount as these firms were shifting assets just straight out of IHCs and into branches. Collectively, I mean, I've given you three data points here, just collectively aggregating across the entire foreign banks sector. Foreign banks overall have cut 33% of their U.S. IHC assets since this rule went into effect, and a large proportion of those assets shifted directly into their branches. So, as we sit here today, foreign bank branches have $2.9 trillion in U.S. assets that is an all-time high for foreign bank branches. So, just to summarize where we are, we've got foreign banks that in an effort to evade new regulations have really changed their business models to be much more reliant on branches as opposed to their IHCs. I contend, though, that U.S. policymakers really haven't adapted to this new landscape. So, I mean, to say a little bit more about why I think foreign banks continue to pose risks to the U.S. financial sector, but let me just pause there for a moment to see if there's any questions up to this point. Okay. Like I said, feel free to jump in, put any questions in the chat if you've got them. But for now, let me talk about why I think this is a problem. So, the lack of attention to foreign banks is problematic because foreign banks pose some unique risks to the United States. The domestic banks don't pose. I divide these risks up into two different categories. I think there's financial stability risks that foreign banks pose, and national security risks. I'll identify each of these briefly. So, in terms of financial stability risks, I would start with liquidity. As I mentioned, foreign bank branches generally can't accept retail deposits. So, instead, they rely overwhelmingly on vulnerable forms of short-term wholesale financing, repo, commercial paper, securities lending, arrangements. It means that foreign banks' U.S. operations are unusually prone to liquidity strains that can jeopardize their stability and spread to other market participants. So, I think one of the major problems with foreign banks' U.S. operations is they're much more vulnerable to liquidity strains than U.S. banks are. There's also the problem of information asymmetries. U.S. supervisors only oversee a portion of a foreign bank's operations, only the foreign banks' U.S. operations. But we know that a foreign bank's parent company can transmit risks to its U.S. operations. U.S. supervisors, though, may be unaware of those risks developing at the parent company until it's too late. It's very likely that the parent bank's home country supervisor will have some incentives to withhold important information from U.S. authorities. They might not want to share detrimental information if they think that U.S. authorities are going to take punitive action against the bank's U.S. operations. The issue of prosyclicality. Prosyclicality means that foreign banks contribute more to credit bubbles than domestic banks do. Foreign bank lending increases more rapidly during expansionary periods and then falls more rapidly during contractions compared to domestic banks. Foreign banks really amplify fluctuations in U.S. business cycles. For as good as the upsides are, the upsides are higher because of foreign banks. But then critically, the low points, right, are recessions and our financial crises are worse because foreign banks pull back more rapidly when the going gets tough. And the final point on prosyclicality, or excuse me, on financial stability is externalities. Because foreign banks generally don't pay into the FDIC's deposit insurance fund, they don't help to offset the financial stability risks that they create. So foreign banks propagate risks throughout the United States financial system. Some banks may fail, some U.S. banks may fail, and the FDIC may have to pay out claims to depositors. When the FDIC does that, it's out of funds that foreign banks didn't contribute to. And so foreign banks in some sense get a free ride. They have to pay deposit insurance assessments that could help to offset their financial stability risks. So that's financial stability risks. In addition to threatening financial stability, foreign banks also pose some national security risks. Given their cross-border operations, foreign banks are potential conduits for activities like money laundering and terrorist financing and other illicit activity. Nonetheless, any money laundering controls remain inadequate at a lot of foreign banks as evidenced by numerous any money laundering enforcement actions that U.S. authorities have taken against foreign banks over the past decade or so. So lots of foreign banking risks. Critically, I contend that most if not all of these risks are most pronounced with respect to foreign bank branches as opposed to foreign bank subsidiaries. So foreign bank branches have more liquidity risks. They're more reliant on short-term funding than foreign banks subsidiaries. Information asymmetries are more pronounced because branches tend to rely on management at the parent company, overseas management as opposed to local management. Procyclicality is more pronounced. There is empirical evidence showing that foreign bank branches are more procyclical. They increase lending more rapidly during good times and decrease lending more rapidly during bad times, then do foreign bank subsidiaries. And national security risks are more pronounced almost all, if not all, of the enforcement actions taken against foreign banks with respect to money laundering have been with respect to branches and not foreign bank subsidiaries. All right, I see we've got a couple of questions that came in. Let me pause here for a moment to address these questions. I see Robert asks, are U.S. banks providing this capital to foreign branches or are they sourcing this globally? Good question. So where does a foreign banks funding come from? They're sourcing funds in largely U.S. short-term markets. So foreign banks want dollars. That's what they're after. And so it's largely coming from U.S. counterparties. But there are other providers of U.S. dollars as well who play in U.S. dollar funding markets. So I don't know the exact breakdown of whether it's coming from U.S. banks or U.S. non-banks or non-U.S. providers, but these markets tend to be predominantly U.S.-based for what that's worth. Okay. So as you can see, I think there are some lingering weaknesses in U.S. oversight of foreign banks that expose the U.S. to potential risks. In the paper, I propose two strategies for addressing these risks. The first strategy is mandatory subsidization. By mandatory subsidization, I mean effectively eliminating foreign banks' ability to operate in the United States through branches. Saying to foreign banks, if you want to operate in the United States, that's great. You are welcome to. You just have to do so through a subsidiary that may be underneath an intermediate holding company. I think there are a lot of reasons to favor mandatory subsidization, a lot of reasons why the U.S. should seriously consider doing this. For one, I think mandatory subsidization would enhance management and supervision of foreign banks' U.S. risks. This is taking the IHC requirement to the logical extreme. In 2016, the U.S. implemented an IHC requirement to create one nexus for all of their subsidiaries. But we still have dual structures where a foreign bank like Deutsche may have a U.S. IHC and one or more branches. The U.S. IHC is managed locally, the branch managed overseas in Germany, and that creates complications for both management and supervision of Deutsche banks' risks. If you've got complicated management silos, it's difficult for U.S. supervisors to get a complete understanding of the foreign banks' U.S. risks, better that we should mandate subsidization and create a single nexus for all of the firm's U.S. risks. Mandatory subsidization would also facilitate resolution if a foreign bank were to get into trouble. The U.S. lacks a satisfactory mechanism for resolving a failed foreign bank branch in a way that limits the fallout to U.S. counterparties into the broader U.S. financial system. The failure of a foreign bank branch would be very messy with different federal and state authorities claiming jurisdiction and the inability to impose counterparties stays. It could get very messy, but if we mandate subsidization, then upon a foreign bank's failure you could resolve its U.S. banking activities through the traditional FDIC bank resolution process. It could be a lot cleaner. Mandating subsidization would also reduce prosyclicality in the transmission of macroeconomic shocks. As I mentioned, the empirical evidence on this demonstrates that foreign banks' subsidiaries in the United States are much less prosyclical than foreign bank branches. They don't contribute as much to the creation of credit bubbles, nor do they contribute to financial crises as much as foreign bank branches. And finally, I think that mandating subsidization would be good because it would bring foreign banks into the deposit insurance system. Foreign banks would be required to pay assessments to the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund that would help offset the financial stability risks that foreign banks create. And critically, by giving foreign banks the opportunity to take retail deposits, that could create some much needed competition for retail deposits. That's relative to the too big to fail banks like JP Morgan and Citi, which have grown dramatically since the 2008 crisis. So I think it'd be great to have new competitors in the retail banking market. And foreign banks might be inclined to compete there if we subject them to deposit insurance assessments anyway. So that's my case for mandatory subsidization. There are a lot of myths floating around about the potential negative consequences if the US were to require subsidization. I aim to dispel those myths in this project. But probably the most pervasive myth is that mandatory subsidization would lead to a harmful de-globalization or balkanization, right? It would cause foreign banks to retrench or pull back from US banking markets. I think very little evidence that foreign banks would in fact pull out if the US were to subsidize. And even if the US were to mandate subsidization, and foreign banks were to curtail some of their cross-border activities in response to the subsidization, I think they would likely reduce their short-term capital markets activities, but preserve their socially beneficial long-term lending activities. Derek Turner, who was the chair of the UK Financial Services Authority, gave a speech in which he referred to foreign bank activity in the United States as the wrong sort of capital flows, right? All these short-term capital markets transactions, capital markets investments, relying on short-term wholesale funding is the wrong kind of capital flows. I think if we mandate subsidization, you may see a decline in those wrong kinds of capital flows, but I think that's a feature, not a bug, right? Some balkanization in short-term debt markets may not be a bad thing. And I think there's very little reason to believe that foreign banks would pull back on their traditional banking activities that we would like to preserve. There's also a contention that subsidization would mandate or would violate the principle of national treatment. There's a long-standing norm in international financial regulation of national treatment. This is a norm of non-discrimination. National treatment says that host country supervisors should treat foreign banks no less favorably than they treat domestic banks, right? Competitive equity. But I think it's very easy to square mandatory subsidization with national treatment. U.S. bank holding companies, in order to engage in banking in the United States, have to establish U.S. depository institution subsidiaries. So I think it is perfectly consistent with national treatment to say to a foreign bank that in order to engage in banking activities in the United States, a foreign bank has to establish a U.S. bank subsidiary. That seems to me fully consistent with the idea of national treatment and competitive equity. And the final claim that you hear anytime the U.S. makes any movement toward regulating foreign banks more strictly is people say, no, you can't do that because other countries are going to retaliate against U.S. banks, right? Other countries are going to crack down on JP Morgan and Citi and God forbid JP Morgan and Citi to be subject to stronger regulation overseas. As you can probably tell from my tone, I'm not terribly bothered by that response. But one, U.S. banks are significantly less internationally focused than many foreign banks are. So for systemically important U.S. banks, they have an aggregate about a third of their assets overseas. Compare that to systemically important European banks, which have about two thirds of their assets in overseas affiliates. So even if the world were to move to a widespread subsidization model, that's going to affect European banks a lot more than it affects U.S. banks. So I think that's one reason not to worry so much. And the other reason not to worry so much is that a lot of jurisdictions have already moved to a subsidiary model. So still Argentina, Chile, India, Korea already have subsidization requirements or their equivalent. So this fear of retaliation may be overblown. So I want to reserve the last 20 to 15 to 20 minutes for questions. Let me just mention there is an alternative, right? If we don't want to move to mandatory subsidization for some reason. I should mention, by the way, I think mandatory subsidization would require an act of Congress. I don't think that the Federal Reserve or any other U.S. Authority has the ability under existing law to mandate subsidization. It would require Congress to get interested and pass new legislation. We all know of course how rare acts of Congress are, especially in the banking space. So we may need to think creatively about other ways to regulate foreign banks U.S. operations if mandatory subsidization is not possible. I think there are other ways to enhance oversight of foreign bank branches. If we're going to keep foreign bank branches in operation, we need to do a better job of overseeing them. First, foreign banks have to be subject to better prudential regulation by prudential regulation, I mean safety and soundness oversight. And since foreign branches don't maintain capital in the United States, better prudential regulation probably means stronger liquidity requirements. It's a requirement that they maintain more highly liquid assets in the United States to offset their potential for liquidity runs, the potential for their financing evaporating very quickly. The Federal Reserve has been making noise for the past few years about imposing stronger liquidity rules on foreign bank branches, but they have consistently found excuses not to. Most recently at the end of last year, the Fed said, we know we've been talking about imposing these rules for a while, but we need to have more conversations with our international regulatory counterparts before we're ready to do this. I think the time for discussion is over and the Fed needs to get on and ultimately adopt these standardized liquidity rules. The other thing that I think we could do to improve branch oversight is to cut down on regulatory arbitrage by mandating federal chartering of foreign bank branches. We didn't talk about this earlier in the discussion, but today when a foreign banking organization wants to establish a branch in the United States, it has a choice. It can go to the federal government and get a charter from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or the OCC, or it can get a charter by a state, usually New York. So I think this dual system of state and federal chartering creates some problems that we ought to avoid and we could avoid by mandating federal chartering only of foreign bank branches. Let me wrap up my part of the talk there. I'll just recap and note that foreign banks role in the US financial system has changed pretty dramatically in the 50 years that they've been operating here, and US policy hasn't kept pace with those changes. The OCC requirement in 2016 was very well intentioned, but it had the unintended consequence of shifting assets from relatively well regulated foreign bank subsidiaries into pretty lightly regulated foreign bank branches. Branches, I think, continue to pose risks to the US financial system. So I think we should seriously consider mandating subsidiarization, doing away with those foreign bank branches and failing that doing a much better job of prudentially overseeing foreign bank branches and perhaps mandating federal chartering if we continue to permit branches. So let me, for real, wind up there. I'd be happy to take questions, comments. I'm eager to hear your feedback. Jeremy. Yes, Paul, how are you? Paul Lee. Thank you. This is a great presentation. As you know, I have represented foreign banks for quite a long time in private practice. And I just want to say I admire your courage, because you're stepping on the toes of virtually every constituency, the US banks, the foreign banks, the state regulators, the state government, and parts of the federal government.  A couple of small points and then I'd be very interested in looking at your draft article. One counterpoint among the large banks, and this is just kind of the historical curiosity, HSBC gave up its last branch in the United States and I think 2001. So since 2001, it is operated under your model. I don't know that there are many other foreign banks that have given up their branch but kept a bank subsidiary. And I suspect the challenge will be that many of the smaller and medium sized foreign banks that currently have a branch or agency in the United States will find it very difficult economically and financially to convert that operation into a full-fledged FDIC insurance bank. I suspect that their hurdles, hurdle returns for them will be very, very substantial. So one of the things you might give some thought to is how to deal with that problem that, that there will in effect be assuming, assuming you get over the political issues there'll be pretty significant economic and financial issues that will segment the foreign banks. And I think all the foreign banks will oppose it, but certainly the big foreign banks can afford in a way to deal with it in a way that's a smaller and medium sized foreign bank. Yeah. And as you, as you point out, this debate about having a branch or agency or a required bank subsidiary has been one that's been going on for years, including the International Banking Act and the study on affiliation department like that and the Institute of International Bankers, as you probably know, over the years has done studies about the treatment both in the United States and in other countries of the subsidization department. So I think that will be important to address in your article. But I think it is, I think it's absolutely fair question to pose. Yeah, as I say, I think it does will require a rethinking of what has been accepted practice sort of internationally for a long time, at least among the largest institution book. I think the US banks will feel compelled to oppose this because the foreign banks, the large foreign banks will feel compelled to oppose it. You have a constituency of all the large US and foreign banks in opposition to a subsidization requirement. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you Paul for those comments. I appreciate your point about, I don't know if I'm brave or stupid, but I recognize the likely opposition here I'll note Paul, my last article before this was about community bank regulation and the claim that we don't regulate community banks strongly enough so I made the community banks mad with that one if there's another lobby that is as strong as the community banks it's the foreign banks. So I'm just, I'm an equal opportunity offender, I think I'm just collecting enemies right and left. You know Paul noted that subsidization is not a new idea. Paul, I think you said it was in the IBA I think it was in the in Fibse in 1991. Congress made some noise about mandating subsidization in the early 90s couldn't get congressional approval so instead they mandated study. Treasury and the Fed hashed it out. Treasury was in favor of mandatory subsidization. The Fed under Greenspan's leadership was opposed. The Fed won that battle and this report in 1992 came out against mandatory subsidization. Actually my, my wonderful CFLP research assistant Sam Herd tracked down what must be one of the last remaining hard copies of that Fed Treasury report it was sitting in some library at Duke Law School, and they shipped it up here and you know we made hard copies of it. It's interesting to go back and read those debates between the Fed and Treasury about subsidization 30 years ago. You know who was one of the biggest proponents of mandatory subsidization of foreign bank branches at the time. Jay Powell, who was at the time assistant secretary under secretary at the Treasury Department, and he was carrying the Treasury Department's water, promoting this idea of mandatory subsidization. I haven't heard him asked about it now I'd imagine that he's probably changed his tune. Paul, you're right. You know the domestic banks will oppose this, as they did in the early 90s, just as vehemently as they would oppose, as foreign banks would oppose it. So yeah, I don't envision anybody in the financial sector clamoring for this but I think that's part of the reason why we need to take it seriously because I think it's an underappreciated risk. So I take your point about HSBC being the lone bank, HSBC is the only one of the 13 largest, only one of the 13 banks with the largest US operations to get rid of their branches. And I grant that this may, subsidization requirement may cause some foreign banks to rethink how or if they do business in the United States. Paul, to your point of the smaller foreign banks, you know, as I noted in my last article, community banks are really get light touch regulation in the United States. So if a foreign bank has less than $10 billion in banking assets here, I'm not sure how much more onerous that regulation would be than the bank is receiving now with the branch model. For, you know, the medium sized banks, I think it's, you know, a public policy trade off question of what sorts of services the bank is providing do we think they're socially beneficial and are we willing to accept their financial stability and national security risks that those companies pose, or would we rather err on the other side of the trade off, and favor more financial stability, potentially at the expense of some financial integration, just question how worthwhile that financial integration is. Thank you Paul I appreciate the question I'd be happy to send you the full draft of the paper. Thank you. Robert, do you want to unmute and ask your question. Sure. Thanks Jeremy. Good presentation. I'm enjoying it. Thank you. I was just thinking, just trying to tie this back to your somebody suggested solutions. They're a systemic issue with the lending process so I was thinking if, if a foreign branch is going out for capital to say a US bank or other source, they're providing some sort of collateral be it a letter of credit or a grant, whatever, which I'm guessing is backed by the parent. Is it that the, the US source was inexperienced at dealing with the credit risk they were facing and couldn't measure it, or was it that the parents actually defaulted, or maybe a little bit. Great question Robert. I'm hypothesizing here because I'm interpreting the empirical data on pro cyclicality. But Robert you hit on, I think what is probably the strongest explanation for why branches are so much more pro cyclical than foreign bank subsidiaries. I think it has to do with the underwriting process and the presence of local management in the United States. When you have a foreign bank subsidiary that has local management in the United States has, you know, a sense of US credit markets. They probably make better underwriting decisions than foreign bank branches that are managed primarily overseas with managers who aren't as connected to US credit markets and may not make as strong underwriting decisions. I think your question gets to that point, one of the reasons why we see so much pro cyclicality in the branches may be the absence of local management. Does that answer your question is somewhat relevant to your question. Yes, that is relevant on the on the branch side on the other side was the people are here who are providing them the capital. Are they also lacking the experience to assess the risk of that foreign branch effectively. So when when I provide you're saying that the funders of foreign branches. Yeah, that's the process. That's interesting. I hadn't considered that part part of this is short term debt markets. They're generally thought to be risk free because they're overnight funding and in some cases they're anonymous. So there's not a big underwriting process that goes on in a lot of these short term debt markets. So I think that the creditors aren't really thinking about it in that way and that's in part why short term funding can evaporate so quickly because when people get scared as they did in 2007 2008, you just stopped lending everybody because you don't know what your county parties risk exposure. So I don't think that process happens in a very systematized way. Oh, great. Thank you. Okay, you can take one more Jeremy. Sure. Drew wants to know, do you think you maybe underestimating the effect of broad retrenchment by your European banks due to weakness, rather than regulatory arbitrage on reduction of IHC assets. I think the graph on slide six might be off. Yeah, if you want to chime in more. That is a good point. European banks have been struggling over the past decade and the reduction in IHC assets could in some cases be considered shoring up the parent bank. I don't think that that explains the simultaneous growth in branch assets. These firms are still doing business in the United States. They're just choosing to do it in a way that's subject to less US oversight. So it's not so much, I think that they're shoring up their domestic operations so much as they're just reorganizing their US operations. But I take the point and I can go back and reconsider whether there's some sort of underlying weakness that the parent company that may explain some of this movement. Okay, I think we need to stop here. If everyone would kindly acknowledge Professor Kress for his talk today, either with your cameras on or you can do the little simple thing if you're really good at it. I also want to thank Tracy Van Dusen from the Center on Finance, Law and Policy and Liz Smith from the Ford School for doing the behind the scenes work to get this to get this up. So next month, our next Blue Bag Lunch Talk will be on Thursday, October 1. We will have from the School of Information, Professor Tawana Dilla Hunt and Julie Hua, and they are going to talk about entrepreneurship. Thank you again very much for coming, for participating, and we look forward to seeing you next month. Thanks. Thanks everybody. Oh my gosh, Jeremy. I don't know how you do that with nobody watching you. Oh, hey, Paul. Jeremy, that was great. That was great. Thank you, Paul. Thank you. Thank you so much for your thoughtful thoughts. Look at the stuff the IIB has been publishing over the years, because I think you just need to be prepared to deal with it. My impression is the number of branches and agencies in the United States over the last 10 years have been substantially reduced. I think a number of banks found the environment too dangerous because of anti-money laundering and other things, or they couldn't afford the expense of all the stuff they needed to do. So I think at least a reference to the fact that if my recollection is correct, that quite a number of foreign banks have either consolidated their branches and thereby reduced their number. Or in some cases, in some cases, close their branches. Okay. So there is a fair point.


Good Bookworms, make good fighters. Hello everyone, Dylan Schumacher, Citadel Defense, and we are back with another edition of Tactical Book Review. Today's book is The Professional Citizen Project. This is Citizen Manual One, Individual Tactics Skills by Mr. Jack Morris. Full disclosure, Jack is a subscriber to this channel and reached out and offered to send me this book to read, which was very generous of him. Deeply honored, Jack, that you did that. So thank you for sending me this book and thank you for writing it because I enjoyed reading it. So a couple things to note about this book off the bat. First of all, it is written for everyday people like you and me, which is great because of all the books that are viewed in this channel, you know, 95, 100% of them, somewhere in there are all written for people who do this professionally, right?  And in that case, I really, really appreciate it. The second thing that I really like is he uses the word citizen. He uses the word citizen compared to the word civilian. Now I have a personal war against the word civilian, which I probably talked about on here before, but the fact that a civilian's just a person who's defined by what they are not, right? A civilian is just a person who's not military. And these days since 9-11, it also kind of means not law enforcement, maybe not firefighter, right?  So I like the fact that he uses the term citizen, someone who has a stake in their nation, who's a stakeholder in how things go, right? Someone who is committed and involved and a part of the political sphere, shall we say? So I really, really appreciate the way he uses the word citizen and it's the professional citizen project versus civilian, which would have kind of been an immediate turnoff to me. So good job on that, Jack. So this is the part one, right? There will be other manuals coming out as far as I can tell, they're not out yet. And I would recommend a part one to you. It's a really good intro to all the stuff.  I appreciate that he does some gear breakdowns in here. He talks about working within your team, right? This isn't just, it's called individual tactics and skills, right? But he has this in the context of a team. So as a team with your group of other professional citizens, you know, how are you gonna choose a common caliber rifle? For example, right? You should think about that.    And what is the best way to kind of standardize what needs to be standardized like guns, right? And calibers and stuff like that. And what doesn't need to be quite so standardized and how are you gonna do that together as a team? He goes through, you know, the patrolling basics, right? Some basic land nav and full disclosure here. I've never read a chapter on land nav that I've got done reading and been like, you know what, that nails it. So not because they're poorly written, but because I think land nav is something that is extremely difficult to teach over a book. I just think it's not a topic that you can read about super well, you gotta go do it. And after you do it for like 10 minutes, you're like, oh, this isn't so bad. But reading about it and learning it, it's one of those things that's tough. At least for me and my small brain. He does a fantastic job in here talking about weight and how much weight you should or should not carry. And I thought that part of the book in the beginning was particularly enlightening. And he just talks about the more weight you add, the more it decreases your function, your ability to fight. And being really miserly in how much weight you're carrying. Again, super helpful would recommend. All in, this is a pretty short read. I mean, we're coming in just around 200 pages, just over 200 pages. And again, pretty simple to cover all the basics, right? How are you as an individual gonna know how to shoot, move and communicate with your team? You know, hand signals, basic patrolling, basic attack and flanking tactics, stuff like that. You know, make sure your weapons squared away, zeroing, that kind of thing. So if you have a group of guys and you wanted to get together and read this or you're gonna read it and then teach through it with your guys to make sure everybody's got all the basic skills checked, this would be a good place to start, right? Or if you don't have a team and you don't have a group of guys but you wanna be ready for when you do have one, again, this book would be a good place to start. So I would recommend that you get a copy of the Professional Citizen Project. It is one of the best books that I've read so far that gives the absolute intro basics. Like, you don't know anything about anything and let's give you the intro basics. And so for some of you or for some of us, you know, it might feel a little rudimentary, for example. However, I think this book really shines with someone who doesn't know anything. Or if you're getting together with someone and they're starting to get in this and they wanna learn more or whatever, I would give them this book and just say, hey, just go read that and then come back to me and let's pick up from there. Cause it's gonna do a good job of giving them a foundation level of understanding of what it is we're trying to accomplish. And when you say, hey, we're gonna take a seals halt here, they're gonna know what you mean. They're like, oh yeah, stop, look, listen, smell, like that's what we're doing, right? There's some of the other tactical books that I've reviewed, they're kind of a step above this as far as like a depth. And they already assume you know this stuff. And I have yet to find a book that does a really good job like this of assuming you know nothing and then trying to start you out there. So I think this book does a really good job in that regard and would recommend it for again, people who are coming in just ground zero don't know anything. I hope you found that helpful. I don't have an affiliate link for this but I will put a link to it down below because you definitely should pick it up. Thank you again, Mr. Jack Morris for sending this one over. This has been the professional citizen project, citizen manual one, individual tactical skills. Do brave deeds and endure.


to stopping oof Hey oofers real estate gaming here welcome back to another video today. We're gonna be playing happy oof day part three Yeah, man. So far we made it to part three. I believe there is one more part So we only have one more to go but in this one we'll see what happens. All right, so let's begin You've destroyed oof for good in the explosion or have you wait did we I got we got him What's the fraud you went down? Yes, we did all right So a new villain a oof strong is bringing fallen oof back to life and plotting a hurricane blast to clear humanity What you got to be kidding me oof strong who is this guy? Where'd he even come from man? Can you add can you end biggest head stop the threat this time wait? I thought biggest head died in part two did he not it might not correct All right play to find out click tap to continue. Oh my god, okay So now we defeated oof and now we have to defeat this guy named oof Tron Which is trying to bring back oof back to life each other like resurrect them from the dead that is not cool, bro All right, so let's begin with this Okay, we're in the snow. Oh god. Oh my god. Is that oof Tron? Why is he just standing here in the middle of nowhere man? What's that building it? I'm guessing that's oof Tron headquarters or something man. All right, whatever So do we walk toward him? Hey, what's up, buddy? Why y'all here by yourself man, that's not cool. It's kind of creepy man He's in the snowstorm just hanging out. This is not normal at all. Okay. He has a robotic arm So that is definitely oof Tron. Okay, so we got to be careful. We don't want to approach this guy too harsh Hey, man. What's up? Do the talk to us or something? Okay, we're stuck. This is not good. We can't move.  Oh my god. All right. Well, that was a 180 Okay, so it's a you better get out of here before I come Where's your friends? Haha. Oh, no bad dream. Maybe it will come true Okay, so this is dream or not man. You better not be playing with me. Okay, so how do we get out of here? Okay, there's a code 9 4 1 6. Okay, we can try to use that code here try to input that 9 4 1 6 enter Great it didn't do anything man, or maybe we have to put the code from the previous one I know let's try to remember it was two to four three one. I believe Two four three one. Please do something. Oh, it disappeared. Oh, okay, so this thing fell down We're supposed to climb up here. I don't know we should do this you guys. What do you guys think man? Where you go? Nothing. Let's climb up here. Oh There's another entrance that way Should we go check it out? Let's go check this place out over here. There goes nothing. Oh, we fell down Okay, we were definitely not supposed to go that way Okay, so now we let's go back up here go the correct way Okay, where's this taking us man? Great. There's another keypad here Oh guess we put the last code that we got in here now. Okay was nine four one six Enter. Oh Okay, well that worked out. Let's check it out over here.  It's just kind of sketchy man. Oh God, there's a light. Should we go towards the light? I don't think we should go towards the light man When let's go down this way Well, there's a button Hey, mr. Button Okay, what they made it disappear. What happened to the light? Okay, the lights no longer here man So that's kind of good. It made it like if we would have gotten in it might have gone Keep it's going on over here. Hey, it's big as head. What is up big head? How's it going, buddy? Okay, you to talk something right? What are you doing away so late? I don't know. I guess I'm in a dream or something. You can't be up at midnight or ootron will come Oh, no, not ootron You should get some sleep immediately realistic gaming. All right, man. I'll go to sleep I guess I'll just sleep in this nasty little wooden bed here It kind of like a Minecraft bed The next morning. Oh God, okay. Hey, what's up, mr. Bighead? How's it going, buddy? Okay, talk to me rise and shine. All right. Thank you, man Today's a fresh new start to stop to stopping.  Ootron just came out of nowhere Oh my god No, dude, look at the size of his knife. Jeez. I think it's huge. It's not what oh, no poor biggest head He died twice Or this might be another big head, but I mean in part two. I'm pretty sure we saw him die, right? It was a part one. I don't know man, but he I'm pretty sure he died in the previous Happy of the game. Oh my god, the poor guy. Okay, so we go this way we go towards the light.  There's oofs oof down over here. There's three oof down. Oh, no, my poor buddies Look at these poor guys. They're dead, but they're happy at the same time. It makes no sense I guess they died happy you could say that but this guy's still alive.  Oh, there he is oof trans.  Oh, no, what is it talking about? Wait, is that oof? Oh No What is he trying to do? I must power up the machine and recover falling oof dude. That's oof. That's nasty.  He's roasted. Meet you there. Haha.  We have to go try to stop him.  Like what is oofing wrong with you, man? Oh Gosh, okay. There's fireballs there Let's try to avoid those we don't want to get hit by the fireballs Okay. Oh, there's a button over here. How could I miss that?  There you go. We turned over now. All right. Oh gosh Okay, what is this? I have a feeling if we step on it. It's not gonna end well So let's just try to avoid this thing probably a trap or something. So let's not go towards it Okay, there's there's a lava one here. Oh gosh. Okay, let's go down this way Oh, no, it's a maze. You got to be kidding me brother. Okay. Now we have to die some fireballs bro Come out. Are you sick? Are you kidding me? Okay? Let's go. Okay. Now. God's like. Oh my god. No. Oh No, we're on fire Dude, we're on fire. We're gonna oof. Are we gonna oof? The fireball goddess came over Now we have to start over man. Oh God, all right, and we're back at the flaming meatball area. So we got to be careful It does these babies.   Can we made it? Yes, we made it All right, so let's go check out We have I guess we have to find more of those green buttons that we have to press so we can like Activate the one back there because I went back there was a lava one So I have to turn green somehow so we have to go find out how we can turn this thing green and I see a green one Over here. Nice. Oh great. Oh, we're gonna have to keep going back and forward to press them You got to be kidding me. Okay, we still can't go up there yet Let's go look for more of those green buttons. So I was like we're playing hide-and-seek with these things man Wait, I saw like something here. I don't know man. I swear. I saw something Okay, where do we go? I? Just don't want to get hit by one of those flaming fireballs man. Not again Okay, oh somebody send me messages. What's up, man? Can't you see I'm playing some oof thing right now Okay. Oh, oh my god. Those things just keep falling. Okay, let it fall This is our chance go Run, okay. Nice. We made it that was so close that part is scary man. Okay, so now we press this one What what is it even doing? I feel like it's not even doing anything, man I think we have to go back to the ladder now. So here we go. Oh my god It's so dangerous. They have us going back and forth Okay, no, I am not falling for that one. Wait. Can those fall? Oh my god Okay, be careful those fall away good cross.  So now we have to walk back to the ladder I guess we better be able to climb it now because we activated like three of them Okay, now we have to press another one Okay, where's this thing taking us? Oh Just like that. Okay. This better not be a trap man And up we go right now what? Now what this place looks scary, man Can I see a green button here? Oh Nice we activated one Now we have to look for more How many of these buttons are there man?  Oh The door opened or the wall opened Because it wasn't a door. It's a wall man Okay, now that we go this way My god, this is a giant maze. I'm gonna go insane here I'm gonna get lost in here, man. Okay. We go left to right Hopefully oof oof Tron is not behind here somewhere man. It's like jump scares us. Okay. There's a button here nice Please oof Tron you better not be here Okay, there's nothing there.  Do we get it? Yes, we made it. Okay. Now we go up here. Oh great more fireballs. Oh My god, these things are falling way faster Okay, this is pretty scary man Run! Okay, we made it. No we climb up here Dude, how tall is this building? I feel like we've gotten up a thousand floors Okay, now we have to keep going through this base again Okay, see I went oh no it's oof Tron How beautiful the earth looks I guess so man Okay, when I finish with it boy, it will look boy will it look great? Oh no, this guy's a maniac You know the best part is it's too late to stop me.   Oh god. No Where's falling oof?  He's trying to make us oof. Okay. Let's not let him touch us because if he does we're gonna oof So let's just defeat this guy Please get away from me. Mr. Oof Oh my god, he's pretty terrifying. He no i'm stuck.  Okay, so let's let's make oof go over here So he can slow him down because he's pretty quick. No get away Dude Leave me alone, please I beg you. Oh my god. Okay.  He's almost dead Three two one. Oh gosh, great. He's still going. There you go. We defeated him Okay, now what? Really good. Put the machine. No, wait. Do we press this? Oh, we stopped there. No, what have you done? I stopped you.  Okay, now what? Okay, so did he oof Did we just defeat oof Tron? What about my oof pals down there, man?  What do we do? What is going on? Somebody let me out Do we keep shooting him? No, oh there we got the badge We got the badge one oof games two good ending award. Oh, we got to get it ended You beat oof Tron or did you oh gosh, please tell me we did play happy oof day four to see what happens next Anyways congrats on waiting. Well, there's that we got to get ending and we Defeated oof Tron, but who knows he might be still alive in part four, man. Oh god All right, you guys. Well, thank you guys for watching Thank you guys for the amazing support if you guys enjoyed the video Make sure to slap the oof button if you do the channel make sure to subscribe and hit that notification bell Now we'll see you guys in the next one oof


Item number SCP-579 Object Class Keter Threat Level Special Containment Procedures Due to the difficulty of containing SCP-579, it has been contained at Site-579, which has been built specifically for the purpose of containing SCP-579. All staff at Site-579 are to be rotated out bi-weekly for psychological, physical, and spiritual examinations. In addition, staff assigned to SCP-579 are to score 100 points or higher on the milligram obedience examination. SCP-579 is to be contained in a 2 kilometer by 2 kilometer by 1 kilometer containment cell, lined with steel, lead, titanium, telekill, alloy, and – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – The secondary containment cell is to be flooded with gamma radiation once every two hours. Any attempts to breach a secondary containment cell are to be responded to by an automated system, capable of flushing the entire containment cell with sedatives. In the event that SCP-579 breaches containment and manages to subdue on-site MTF forces, several Foundation satellites located above Site-579 will unlock the extraneous containment measures DLC for only 1,000 telekilts. All active MTF forces located at the nearby Site-99 are to be deployed to Site-579 to search for the remains of SCP-579. Once SCP-579 is recovered, it is to be held in containment until Site-579 is rebuilt. In the event of an XK-class Salton Earth scenario, Harkin Grey Matter Transporters, HGMT, located at Site-579, will transport SCP-579 and its containment systems to an isolated cavern system located 200 kW below surface level. Should the XK-class scenario make further containment on Earth unfeasible, SCP-579 will instead be transported to the third planet from the star. In the event of a ZK-class In-the-Reality scenario, Description Unlock Description using 1,000 telekilts will pay $15.99 to acquire Description and Addendum DLC. Point of Origin is Event 1 Initial Assessment of SCP-579 is undertaken Unlock Description DLC for 2,000 telekilts Unlocking that goes wrong DLC for 5,000 telekilts Successful Containment DLC is DLC exclusive Unlock Successful Containment DLC by order in this document from the DLC Event 4 SCP-579 is moved to Site- Event 5 SCP-579 is moved into


Hello everyone, welcome to another Narc Survival Live video. I've just been checking out these incredible views of these islands as many of you may know. I do enjoy a good view but let's get straight into this one. The Narcissist will regret what they did to you. Before I begin please give this video a thumbs up down below. It helps the YouTube algorithm to get this message out there so that other survivors will see this very important message. Because there is a lot of misinformation going on around YouTube where people say that these Narcissists just don't feel anything. They have no emotions and just no awareness of anything as though they can just forget everything they do to you and just move on. That is not the case at all. That is incorrect. I can tell you that yes in fact for the things they do to you and they know very well what they have done to you. For those things deep down yes they carry a lot of shame. They are haunted by their actions and it goes with them wherever they go it follows. They can't get rid of it and they may try to move on into other relationships, jobs, whatever it may be and they take that shame with them. The shame as a result of all the actions they did to you. That goes with them wherever they go and it's often the reason why they just can't sustain anything in their lives.  I mean just look at how things went down with you. Look at how they treated you. All of the things they did to you. You know they just came in and they thought that they could just play with your emotions. That they could just come in and disrespect you by treating you as recreational use as though it's just for their entertainment, their own amusement and enjoyment and they could just play around with you as though you're not worthy of something more. But you know what by doing that they end up shooting themselves in the foot. They end up selling themselves short because they could have had your lifelong dedication, loyalty and commitment.  You cared a lot about them. You had their best interest in mind and as I've said before most people in this world they're not going to have your best interest in mind. Yes they might give you this facade that they actually care about you but deep down they don't really care and that is the truth. As I've said in previous videos only one to two percent of the world's population are empaths so if they mess things up with you who do you think they're going to run into next? The odds are they're not going to find another empath again. They're just going to find another fake person, another person who's just like them so when you look at it they didn't really sell themselves short because that's exactly what they deserve anyway. We get a reflection of whatever we believe we deserve in life and that is why they haven't got you anymore because they already know deep down they do not deserve you and you know that you deserve better that's why things didn't work out because if they knew that they deserved you and if you knew that all that you deserved you probably still be with them right now but you're not with them because you know you deserve better.  You were so much more than that but that's what happens when you get around these types of people that's how they're going to treat you because that's how they see themselves. They objectify themselves so they're just going to objectify you they're just hose they're just prostituting themselves. I don't care if it was a man a woman whoever you're dealing with they are just hose they're just prostituting themselves to you there's no loyalty that's why of course when we leave them we end up doing far greater without them. I've run into so many narcissists over the last decade and they thought they could treat me like I'm just some hoe because that's what they are they think they can just prostitute themselves to me as though I'm not deserving of more and they got they got what they deserved they got stuck with nothing they got no loyalty no commitment out of me it was just a short time essentially they just put themselves on a plate to be used and discarded thrown away like they're nothing well as for me my life got so much greater I began this YouTube channel I've made over a million dollars I've traveled to so many countries around the world I've already lost count I mean I've done so much with my life and I don't want to get on here just to brag and boast about all of these things that I've done but it's to send a message to you that these narcissists yes they may seem so arrogant as though they know exactly what they're doing they've got it all planned out no they haven't all of these narcissists were like that with me now look at them now where are they or one of them the last time I checked she was working in the supermarket she had all of these plans all of these dreams when she was with me to become a nurse and then there was another girl as well she had all of these dreams to become a lawyer while we were dating at least then after she left me the last time I saw her she was very obese and she was smoking weed every day those are just two examples of course there are many more but after they left me and I moved on I became a millionaire I troward to so many countries around the world I've helped millions of people around the world I've changed so many lives so this is what they get and of course yes they do feel regret you know when you toy with someone like that when you treat them for a purpose that they are so much greater than of course it will affect you it will and it's even worse for narcissists of course I've done it myself I'm not perfect in the past I gave people less than what they truly deserved they should have got more for me than what I gave to them and if I could go back I would do everything I could to fix it of course now is too late luckily I do have a lot of self awareness so I'm able to resolve it but it never completely goes away it's always there in the back of your mind where you know that you have treated someone unfairly and it doesn't matter who you are if you're a narcissist a psychopath no one is immune to that shame that regrets we can try to avoid reflected on it but it's still there and it's even worse when you're not conscious or aware of it you're in denial and you're just pushing it away you're suppressing it that's even worse because then it dictates every thought every feeling every action and behavior that you make in your entire life from that point on and that's what makes it so toxic and bad for narcissists because they're not even aware of it they're not even conscious of their shame and regret that they're trying to suppress and of course that's just another reason why when they leave they discard us nothing ever goes right for them after that they never really experienced any long-term consistent success anything they get into it fails they just go from job-to-job relationship to relationship even while they've got all of these enablers and flying monkeys it doesn't matter nothing comes of it nothing ever does it never amounts to anything and the reason why despite what all of these other people are saying on YouTube forget about that listen to the professionals the doctors the people who have fully researched this and I have studied a lot of this information as well by the psychologists psychotherapists and I know that the disorders are shame-based they are shame-based people who are doing everything they can to avoid reflecting on their shame regardless of that the shame continues to grow within them and that shame it's really no different to regrets it's that feeling of them being a bad person and it just influences every thought every feeling every action and behavior that they make it literally the things that they have done to you and yes they know it's wrong everyone does have this internal compass of right and wrong even a psychopath we all have it we all just intrinsically know so there is no getting away from it everything they've done to you if you could see in their brains how it impacts it literally affects the rest of their lives how the rest of their life will pan out but I don't want to get too deep into the research right now I mean I do have a video coming up very soon it's gonna be my first pre-recorded video it should be up within the next few days and that is on the gang stalking and it's a lot about bullying and how actually the bully is at a 10 to 25 times risk more than their own victim of developing a psychiatric condition such as anti-social personality disorder which could be sociopathy or psychopathy as well as many other conditions as well so this is not just psychological theory this is psychological fact yes the things we do to other people the energy that we put out there it actually does come back it really does and it's so bad that even if someone is just witnessing these events and they're not actually involved even they get affected by it as well and it affects them very bad I would believe that the reason why is because they still get that shame of feeling like they could have done something but they didn't so I know what that's like because I'm a very self-aware person so of course yes I do recognize in my past when I could have stepped in and done more for someone like we could have we could have had more than what we did have together and I know it I feel it even today a look back and I recognize that yes I could have done so much more I'd even up until this day it still eats away at me it still affects me all of those times when I played with people's feelings their emotions I toyed with them I treated them unfairly yes it still affects me and I can come out and say that because I have this self-awareness and at this point in my life I mean I'm 34 now I'm actually quite comfortable with reflecting on my shame I mean of course it's still painful but I can do it I can sit in a space with it of course narcissists they can't do that they'll try to push it away deny it suppress it whatever they can do to avoid reflecting on it but it's still there and it's still influencing and affecting every choice and decision they make in their lives that's why everything they try to build goes to shit it always falls apart every relationship every job every endeavor whatever they try to do just never goes anywhere so deep down yes believe it or not the truth is they do actually regret what they did to you when they inevitably start to see that they could have had something really good with you instead of just settling for the crumbs they could have had the loaf they play themselves of course they look back and they realize that they don't really like to think about it consciously too much let me just having that thought could just destroy them because remember all they've got is the false self this false identity and it has to be sustained with lies and delusions that's the only way that they can survive emotionally by living in denial that's how we reality is so painful for them and I look back at my own experiences and my own life and I can see that yes every time the narcissist they settle for the crumbs they could have had the loaf they play themselves they saw themselves short but then I guess even without mindset it's like really they got what they deserved did they really deserve our loyalty our commitment did they really deserve the best of what we have to offer of course not if they did they'd probably still be here right now they'd still be getting what we have to offer like I said we get a reflection of what we believe we deserve and that's what they got in the end and it's what we get as well do we really biz really believe that we deserve some toxic abusive manipulative and deceptive narcissist do we really believe that if you really believe that you'd probably still be with them right now and if you are still with them well even then you probably won't be watching this video if you really believe that you deserved what you were getting from them you're watching this right now because you know you deserve more you know you deserve better and I can tell you that you are so much better than that you're so much greater than that so this is how it goes for us and the knocks what happens to us well we get better we grow we become the best versions of ourselves I mean I can honestly stand here right now as I'm looking out at this incredible view these islands I can honestly say at this point in my life I am more stronger and more powerful of a man than I have ever been in my life more wiser more intelligent more knowledgeable and in every situation I am always the star of the show I'm always the star and role in my own movie and on all these knocks just as you should see them they're just the cameo in your movie if that they're not even like in the background they're just they're just the audience a lot of times they're just the audience to your life and I would normally say make sure they're watching you have a good one but now I can't even say that because of course as we know you go on and you become the best version of yourself you go to live your best life or what happens they're gonna come back and try to sabotage it why again that is their shame that's their regrets if they weren't feeling shame and regrets to what they did to you why would they come back to abuse you remember when people abuse they can't abuse without shame they need to have that shame there first and this is what perpetuates the cycle of abuse with a narcissist it's the shame abuse cycle they feel shame so they abuse that perpetuates more shame and more abuse and it's a cycle they can't get out of because their shame is too painful for them to reflect on they're very different to us I mean if I did something bad I would instantly feel a lot of guilt and shame and then I would refrain from doing that again of course when you are an unaware self absorbed narcissist who lacks empathy and consciousness you're gonna be stuck in that cycle for the rest of your life and that is how it's so easy for me if you show me a narcissist I can quite easily show you the rest of their lives so I already know exactly how it's going to pan out well as far an empath there's really no telling which way it could go and that's why narcissists are so controlling and possessive of their victims it's like when you're around a narcissist they always have to constrain you there's never any freedom because it's very unpredictable you never know how things are gonna turn out how things are gonna go for you if they do not intervene that's why they always have to be there whereas for narcissists it's really just so predictable all they're gonna do is just manipulate and abuse people burn all the bridges at least with anyone who is actually real because they already know they don't belong around something like that to begin with at the end they become a collapsed narcissist where they really have no supply or it's either that or they're just surrounded by their enablers and flying monkeys I like the one supply they do have that's typically their enabler it's not grade A it's not like what we were to them because of course the supply that we have is very potent as empaths but it's very rare that a narcissist can even find an empath anyway they usually just settle for whatever they can find they're very lucky if they can get us I'd even then once an empath becomes awakened there's really no going back after that and they know it when we're never gonna see them in the same way ever again and then what typically happens once they've already blown it with an empath all they can do then is find a grandiose narcissist that's typically what they do because what they want to do then is show you and everyone else that you made a mistake you should have done more for them or whatever the narrative is and then they go off with this grandiose narcissist to portray this illusion as though they're so much happier and so much better off without you but of course that just isn't the case at all but it can be quite effective when they portray this illusion when they run off to find a grandiose knock who just manipulates them sells my dream and in that moment the narcissist is so gullible they go along with it they think that it's actually going to amount to something when they actually just get tricked in a very similar way to how they tricked you so that is how it typically goes for them and if you find this video helpful please give it a thumbs up down below it helps you YouTube algorithm to get this message out there again just enjoying these views here of these islands really beautiful place to be just enjoy my travels in Japan and it's really amazing I mean you want to see this immediately of course it does take time but with time you will see as you move on and you start achieving more things doing more stuff with your life and if you compare into their life and see maybe on their social media whatever it is after a few months a few years it's mad but they never actually go anywhere they never achieve anything it amounts to nothing I mean I don't even look at any other ex narcissist social media I don't even need to do that because I already know maybe they got married other single mothers they probably got divorced or maybe they never got married they just got used and abused by other knocks but other fake people just like them I already know that they did not become successful in relationships in their work life I don't even need to see anything I can already guarantee it because we all know narcissism is self-destructive these jerks these bitches these bitchy people that attitude and behavior doesn't lead them anywhere it really doesn't it never does but even in the rare case the extremely rare case well let's say the knock goes off maybe they find a grandiose knock someone who's extremely wealthy I don't know it could be someone with private jets super yachts mansions around the world they find something like that someone who's super attractive everything just everything you could ever imagine or they could ever imagine rather even if they did find something like that they would still find a way to mess it up or even then they'd just be presenting this false image to the world as though they're having such a great time and they're really happy when in reality they are still miserable now that's in the extremely rare case where they do find some grandiose knock who has everything of course that is extremely rare but even then either way they are never going to experience happiness they're never going to experience true love and they are never going to find peace within themselves they're never going to find or experience any of that which we can find and experience so very easily and we don't even need anyone to do that well as for them if they even come around someone like us someone who can experience real happiness and joy and we can find peace from within just for them to even be around something like that they just can't even act normal they can't just sit in a space and have a normal conversation with us you just look at them they're always playing on their phones they're always fidgeting with something they've always got to do or say something so stupid just to try and get under your skin just to try and wind you up like a child they can't sit in a space with you and share your happiness and joy share your peace they just can't do it but I'm sure many of you you know exactly what I'm talking about this is how it always is they come around you they just can't even be normal they can't even have a normal conversation with you and why because they can't be happy they can't experience joy they can't experience in a piece that's why whenever they come around you they've always got to play these stupid games they've always got to try and mess with you and get under your skin because they cannot be happy that is the reason why that's why it's like that and that's why it will always be that way with them it's never gonna be any different it's never going to change because they cannot generate their own happiness and peace from within like we can so whenever they come around us it's always this crazy show this performance that they have to put on these games this manipulation this nonsense which never seems to amount to anything it never goes anywhere because it's all fake it's all lies it's all manipulation the only thing that's real is you and that's why I'm talking to you right now because I know I'm giving value to you and you're gonna turn this value into something I like these narcissists anything you give to them it just goes into a void anyway it's never going to amount to anything you're just wasting your time take that energy and put it on yourself you can make something out of your own life just don't broadcast it to these knocks because as soon as they see that they will come back to sabotage it again and again the reason why is because they just cannot be happy they're never gonna find happy let's just look at how they behave when they are around you they act so childish and immature they're always trying to get under your skin they're always trying to irritate you they just can't sit in a space with you and have a normal conversation because they can't be happy they can't find peace or joy and guess what they are never going to find or have that you will I know you will get it you will have it if you haven't already gotten or had it already you will you will once you get away from now as I did as soon as I got away from these knocks I mean just look at it you can see it the evidence is all over YouTube I've got over 170,000 subscribers over 40 million views made over a million dollars got my tiktok as well this is all what I manifested after leaving these knocks who took me for granted and treated me with contempt and where are they now one still working in a supermarket doing nothing with her life the other one got pregnant and had an abortion with a drug dealer then she was obese smoking weed every day this is how they end up with a bunch of addictions whether addicted to people and on top of that also smoking drugs alcohol gambling shopping all of these mind-numbing activities because they just can't face reality they can't face you because you are reality you are the truth but they will regret what they did to you I can guarantee it I can promise you I can assure you they will regret it even if they never come to you and openly admit it I mean it's very unlikely they're gonna do that it takes a lot of strength for a narcissist to confront their own shame and to admit that they have a problem and to come to you and try to resolve it that takes a lot of strength and as we know most narcissists are very weak so the odds are they're just gonna remain in denial they're gonna try to suppress it that's just gonna perpetuate the shame even more the shame abuse cycle where whatever they get into they just abuse it they must treat it they must use it whether it's a relationship a job whatever it is that's just how it goes for them and honestly that is what they deserve it's not that they saw themselves short they did not deserve our loyalty and commitment as I said we do get a reflection of what we think we deserve that's why they didn't get us because we're so much better than that and because we know that again we get a reflection of what we believe we deserve and we deep down believe that we deserve better and to be abused and to be manipulated and to be lied to and to be future faked yes deep down we believe that we are far better than that far better than to be treated in that way and as I said we get a reflection of what we believe we deserve that is why these narks are not in our lives and if the nark is still in your life that is why you're watching this video right now because you already know you deserve so much better than that few of the islands the Sun is gonna start going down soon so I'm going to continue along my travels before it starts getting dark if you found this video helpful please give it a thumbs up down below it's very important as it helps the YouTube algorithm to get this message out there and you can also let me know your thoughts in the comment section I read your comments every day and if you would like to receive notifications my future videos all you have to do is hit that subscribe button down below and click the bell icon as well and if you'd like to book a one-one with me you can book it on my website it is narksurviver.co.uk also follow me on Instagram send me a message I will reply it is nark survivor YouTube on Instagram again thank you all for watching just out here in the hills overlooking these islands living my best life as you can see and as always I look forward to talking with you in another video very soon