Hello and welcome back to my channel. If you are new here my name is Jackie and I'm an aspiring writer who in six days has to turn over 50 pages of her manuscript to her editor who also appears to enjoy talking about herself in the third person. If you are new here this book is my 2019 NaNoWriMo Project Powerless which is a book where superheroes meet the Russian mafia. I scheduled the 50 page manuscript critique just because I've been looking at revisions since the beginning of July. In fact before that if you include my camp NaNoWriMo Prep work and I'm at the point where I feel like the book still needs a lot of work. It doesn't read like a book that I'd buy in a store. It doesn't read like a book that has gone through many revisions and editors and so on. But I'm also at the stage where I'm not sure how to fundamentally fix it so I think it's going to be helpful to get the feedback. Having said that, sending up a feedback at this stage where I know it's not ready to be seen by anyone else is rather scary especially since I also enlisted three different people to beta read the book in September. So I'm going to have some very interesting emails coming my way in September once they've all read it. So when it comes to what there is left to address in the next six days the Monday deadline is for the first 50 pages of the book so I want to make sure they're as polished as possible. However I've told my beta readers I'll get the book to them in early September so that's about an extra week for them so I'm just looking at everything in one go. Over the last few days I've looked at a couple of scenes that really needed work. They were either added during the revisions or they needed to be replaced. I've looked at adding more of a sense of place so just more description because there are a number of scenes where I can see what's happening in my head but I don't think a reader would be able to recreate that with the lack of detail I gave them. Is that all I did? I've got to watch my last video to find out what I've already done because I feel like given the amount of time I've spent working on it over the past four or so days I've done more than that but I can't think of what else I did. So what else is there still to do? Well one of the difficult scenes I was updating I've sort of done the first half of it and I need to do the next half of it now. I want to include some more flashbacks later in the book because during revisions I added flashbacks as like a convention to help build the relationship between the protagonist and her sister as well as to give little hints about her character in the world and her father and so on. So I've included maybe five, six, even seven of those in the first half of the book but in the second half of the book I don't have any. I've got a couple of placeholders where they can go but I haven't put them in yet so I want to add maybe two or three. I'm okay with there being fewer in the second half of the book because everything's been established by then but I think if it's a convention I introduce at the beginning of the book it should at least appear later on as well. Then I need to name things so I have a city with no name, a country with no name, a family with no surname, a couple of minor characters who are just name and capital letters and highlighted in yellow so all of those need to be filled in. And then I'd like to give it another read through before sending it to anyone so this weekend reading through the first 50 pages, pre-editing and reading through the entire book, pre-sending to everyone else. To give you a sense for length in Microsoft Word I think it's about 166 pages at the moment and it's sitting around 72,000 words. I actually chopped off almost 2,000 words in the last few days so yeah the more work I do the shorter it seems to be getting but that's a good thing. I admit needless words. So the plan for today is to see if I can do the second half of the scene I added yesterday and I think that will be enough for one evening. Hello and happy Thursday. I ended up taking yesterday off because I'm just feeling a bit worn out to be honest. It's been a busy couple of weeks I've had a couple of trips. I'm still quite new into this job that I started at the beginning of July and I feel like I'm getting to the point with the book where I'm making changes but they're not making it better or I'm making changes but they're not like they're feeling like a very rough first draft again especially because the last thing I did was writing a new scene. So that's a little bit frustrating because I'm not at the end of this revision. I do have the deadline coming up. The good news is that I have actually gone through the first 50 pages though so I thought what I'd do today is send the document to my Kindle and just read through what I'm going to be sending the editor and make any notes on how I can refine that and then maybe this weekend I'll get back to looking at the second half of the book which is going to the beta readers. I can feel myself getting very red and warm so let's put this up for a little bit. One of the interesting things about this experience has been figuring out like how much capacity I have to work on this stuff because I used Microsoft Word's compare feature the other day just to compare the current version of the draft to the end of nano-rimo version of the draft. If you're not familiar with the compare feature it's basically combining two versions of the document and highlighting any changes using track changes and what's interesting is the first half of the document had a lot of red a lot of changes had been made but as you get into the second half there's not that much like it's words or sentences here and there but you don't have like sections where pages have been deleted or added and that's very reflective of my experience working on this book in July where the second half of the book I was sort of like I don't think there's that much to change and I'm going through it very quickly and I'm still I'm still not inclined to say that means the second half of the book was just better. I mean it might be but I still think there's an element of me just hitting a wall and I wasn't getting productive work done in that time and I feel like I'm at the same stage now where I've been working on it for the past week now but that's not long at all but I've been working on it for the past week and now I'm at the stage where it's like feeling like a chore it's feeling like a slog it's hard work to get stuff done and I am being less effective in the work I'm getting done and I'm not sure what to do about that I think in the future I might experiment with doing like revisions in one or two weeks sprints so doing a couple of weeks having a couple of weeks off then doing a couple of weeks on the next part of the book the moment I don't have a luxury because I lined up editor and beta readers but I think that could be interesting for the future one of the things that worries me a little bit is that if this is how long it takes like how do people finish books I mean I wrote this in November and December so in fact if we include plotting time I started work at the beginning of October last year so we're coming up to almost a year on this book and it's nowhere near ready for submission in fact I'm at the stage where I'm ready to put it aside for another couple of months before coming back to it so I could see it being almost another year before it's in a stage where it's submission ready if it ever gets there and that seems like an unreasonably long time and it's not that I'm procrastinating I'm not twiddling my thumbs I'm not putting off working on it I'm not making it take a long time because it needs to take a long time it's just genuinely taking a long time and maybe it's because I work full time and 2020 has been what it is but I look at authors who release you know one book a year as part of a series of authors who release multiple books a year and I wonder how they do it and I do know there is ramp up time at the beginning that by the time they've got books coming out there is a good chance they've been working on them for a couple of years at that stage but like the fact that the first one comes out and then a year later the next one comes out that means even if the initial ramp up took a while the ongoing pace is sort of a book a year and I don't even see how that's possible at the moment and again there are somewhat extenuating circumstances 2020 has been a mess started a new job last night in fact I didn't mention last night I was at the police and border guard getting my DV's are organized because at the moment I'm in like immigration limbo where my old residence permit was tied to my old job so that was cancelled at the beginning of August and now as an Australian I can stay in Europe for 90 days without a visa but if I want to stay for longer than 90 days I need either a visa or a residence permit so I've applied for the new visa now that'll give me an extra year and hopefully that's enough time for immigration in Switzerland to open up again so we can relocate so that was last night and that was another one of the reasons why I took the evening off because even though nothing went wrong and I wasn't expecting anything to go wrong it's still a little bit I know it's just the idea that you could be kicked out of a country it's still a little bit stressful and emotionally taxing and I think especially in the moment because borders are less open than they were last year because of coronavirus you're almost in the position where you don't want to do anything wrong like part of me was like oh maybe I should take out my camera and do a little vlogging but I don't want to get told off by some Russian immigration official who doesn't speak English well and so yeah anyway so now I have no passport because it's with the police and border guard and I have no ID because on the way home from my trip from Switzerland they confiscated my Estonian ID card because it was technically expired which is really annoying because it's only expired if you try to do anything with it like if you try to use it for a digital signature or scanner in some way but if I'm just using it as like photo name address identification it's fine the date on the card is until 2023 so now I have no ID at all which is completely unrelated anyway now I'm going to send power list to my Kindle and try to read through the first 50 pages and see what still needs to be polished by Monday I just opened the document on my Kindle and I actually got a little thrill seeing the words because it's like oh my god it feels like a real book now that I'm reading it in a format that isn't a word document or a printed out word document and what's funny is that there's still placeholder text that I need to fill in or little things like I added a subheading every time there was a flashback just so I could see in the document outline how frequent they were through the book so there are things there that need to be deleted to make it clear this is not the final book but it's still it's um yeah cool little milestone and there are so many typos this is embarrassing I've now read the first 13 chapters of my book which is approximately the first 50 pages and this was a really good exercise I mean one because I sort of got the thrill of reading my book on the Kindle but two I think it was good for me to sort of have this as more of a recharge day rather than an active working day but the other thing that was good was that I didn't see that many changes like I wrote five pages of notes they were all copy editing type of changes so typos I noticed or repetition or you know awkward words or there was one paragraph that I'd moved but I'd moved it to the wrong spot so things like that so no major changes and when it comes to the work I did in July I'm really happy with the changes I made I think the flashbacks I've added to this part of the book add a lot more soul I think having the new first scene at the beginning works really well so I'm feeling fairly comfortable about sending this off the feedback admittedly it's not perfect so when I got to around chapter six that was when I started feeling a little bit tired and I don't know if it's just because I'd been reading without a break or if it's because there's something in the book that makes that part tiring so it's going to be interesting to see what other readers think I also I don't remember exactly when but I also got to a point where I'm like okay now it just feels like a whole lot of stuff's happening and like it isn't actually plot now in the last chapter in this selection that's when Hannah the main character meets the boss of the mafia then it feels sort of like we're getting back into plot but I think maybe the two chapters before that just felt like stuff happening and that is the way they're designed because this part of the book is reactionary it's her response to what's kicked off the plot which is her getting kicked out of home so it's not supposed to be too organized but just because it's like that intentionally doesn't mean it works so again that's going to be really helpful to get external feedback so from here I'm just going to update the document with the things I noticed it is 2 46 p.m and at 5 p.m I actually have a french conversation exchange which will be probably the first time I've tried to have an actual in-depth conversation in France since 2011 when I was living there because since then like I've been to France since then but it's all been transactional stuff so when you're at the supermarket or the bakery I haven't tried to explore ideas or anything so this should be interesting but it means I've got a bit over two hours so I'm hoping I can get these changes typed up fairly quickly and then I have a little bit of downtime before I need to head out hello and happy Saturday so I didn't do any work yesterday because work work was a bit it was a good day but it was a long day like I didn't finish until seven which might not seem late to some people but it is fairly late for me so I was a bit wiped out by the time I got home and decided it was best to take the evening off and then have a really you know really focused weekend so the good news is that since I read through at the first 50 pages on Thursday and I've addressed a little bits and pieces I found I don't actually have anything else I need to do before Monday when the first 50 pages are due to the editor aside from naming the things that need to be named but I can put placeholders that's not too big a concern there were a few things I noticed like there's I added in a letter that Hannah picked up before she was forced out of the home which I never put in again later in the book so she never reads it so that's something was like I do need to either delete that sentence or add it in at some point but because the editor's only getting the first 50 pages less of a concern so the agenda for this weekend is one I want to write the couple of flashback scenes I'd like to add to the later part of the book two I want to go back and revisit the difficult scene that I was struggling with earlier in the week just because I am feeling fresher now I do think I can do more work with it I do think it could be better so I'd like to see what'll happen so again not in the first 50 pages so it's not a big deal if I don't get to it this weekend yeah other than that it's just naming the things I do also need to go through the entire book and look at character consistency but I think I might leave that to next weekend I'm actually thinking I'll take the whole week off the whole working week so I'll work this weekend and the next weekend and given that there isn't that much left to do I think I will have done everything I need to before sending it to my beta readers the following week so that's something and that's not to say it doesn't still need work it's just to say that I'm not sure how else to work on it without feedback the other thing I wanted to ask about was how do we like this location so because I don't really want to invest in a lot of lighting because Drew and I are moving to Switzerland at some point and because I also want to be lazy with makeup I was thinking if I just position myself so I was facing the living room window which means I'm literally sitting on top of the coffee table right now all of that natural light might turn me into a supermodel now clearly that hasn't happened I do like the light I do like not having to worry about makeup so much even though as I said natural lighting doesn't make you a supermodel but I acknowledge that the background of the kitchen is a little bit weird so if you have any major objections to this let me know but I think we'll be doing a lot more coffee table sitting in videos to come so one of the flashbacks I want to add is a fight scene between Hannah and Maria like a sparring scene that their father and sister they do as part of their training and there's a moment where Artem says to Maria now use your powers which is not good because she can basically cloak her body in fire and I've run into a problem where Google is not helping me and the reason this is a problem is because I've probably been searching for a good 90 minutes now and I'm not finding anything useful and it's stopping me from writing so if you know someone who's a fireman or I don't know you're a fire dancer or you know something about fire please let me know how long is it possible to touch fire before you get burnt because Google is useless I think I'm done for the day so I've added the two new flashback scenes one of which is split in two so it's sort of like three little flashbacks what's interesting though is that I remember starting another scene and it's nowhere in the book so I don't know what I've done with it maybe I've got a separate outtakes document actually so maybe I'll check if I put it there yeah so I need to look into that anyway I've added the new flashback scenes I went through a couple of sections that I'd highlighted in yellow to sort of refine and I think I'm at that point in the day when I'm not making progress anymore because when I went back to look at those areas I didn't really change them at all so I'll probably look at them again tomorrow so that means the main thing I have left to do this weekend is to name things and then I'll leave the like reading through until next weekend so almost done it is definitely the home stretch so today has been a fairly quiet day I think I mentioned yesterday that after reading through everything a couple of days ago I think the first 50 pages are largely okay or they're as okay as they're going to be before I send them to the editor so what I've been looking at today is naming the things which has involved a lot of looking at Estonian and Finnish and Russian maps to find place names that don't exist or and using Google translate to find different ways to use Estonian words and naming a couple of very very minor characters so that involve going to a list of common Russian names and putting them in so now that I've done that I'm going through trying to find some of the words and phrases I use quite often to see if I can find different ways of using them something that probably won't surprise you if you've been watching this for a while is that I use the words so 187 times in this book which is probably a bit much so I'm going through and trying to take some of them out at the moment however what concerns me more than individual words is phrases so I think there are five or six separate times someone's heart is pounding similarly there are a few different times when someone's mind is spinning or racing there are times when someone's breath gets caught in their throat I use the phrase waved a dismissive hand for separate times so I need to go through and find different ways to say those things because that's a problem having said that there are also like character quirks so I'm not sure if it's a problem to talk about one person who has this mannerism where she waves a dismissive hand because there is one person who does that I don't know if it's a problem to use that phrase more than once in the context of that character or if because this isn't a particularly long book the draft is now around 75 000 words if I should find different phrases to describe that action if it comes up more than once so let me know your thoughts on that is it okay to repeat certain phrases to a certain extent but now I'm actually having a break because I'm having a call with fellow author Tuba and a call Wilbur who is probably going to be one of my beta readers next month so little scary check out that blue orange contrast which way is the best way to do this okay I think that works so I have in through the book I have tried to vary up the words I use and the phrases I use and the first 50 pages are as good as they're going to get this weekend so it is time to send the file to my editor so it's done and I'm not sure how I feel about this actually I am sure how I feel about this I feel very relieved that it's over I'm very much looking forward to putting powerless aside for a few months I'm not ready to do that yet because I still need to read through the I don't know last 80 pages of the book no 120 pages of the book if the first 50 pages are what I already looked at there are 170 pages 120 to do so I'll be doing that next weekend and all in all I feel like this is a pretty good milestone I do feel like I don't know if all of the changes I've made to the book have made it better but I do feel like some of the changes I've made to the book have made it better so that's good so I'm going to end this vlog here I hope you're having a great day whenever it is wherever you are and I will see you next time bye


Good morning, my name is Moises Naima, I'm with the Carnegie Endowment and I'm delighted to be chairing this session today. Ebola, the Russian invasion of Crimea, the plummeting oil prices, the surging ascent of ISIS in the Middle East. Which of these things were part of the conversation last year in Davos? And they changed the world. They defined 2014 and they also pointed to the fact, two facts, to how difficult it is to predict these trends and also how they come from, in contrast to prior years, in which many of the risks that were at the center of our conversations had to do with markets and financial crisis and all of the economic financial dimension of global risks. This year, paramount in our minds and paramount in our discussions here in Davos are geopolitical risks. Risks that are not derived necessarily from the behavior of markets, financial institutions, economic agents, but risks that come from decisions by governments or non-governmental organizations or surprises like a pandemic like Ebola, for example. So the question is, how are markets pricing these risks? Are markets assigning a correct value? Are these risks being underestimated, overestimated? We're going to debate. This is a highly controversial issue and we are going to have a very spirited debate with four very distinguished panelists. Two of them are going to argue that, yes, markets are misunderstanding and mispricing these risks, and two others are going to argue that markets are, in fact, capturing the consequences and that pricing is accurate. To do this, we are lucky to have with us Natalie Anjarensko, to my right. She's the minister of finance of the Ukraine. Minister, pleasure to have you here. I'm not going to read the very long, very distinguished list of achievements of our panelists, but you have them in your books. Then it's Nuriel Rubini, who needs no introduction. He is a professor of economics at New York University and well-known for his understanding of global economics. Paul Singer is also well-known. He manages the Eliot Fund. It's a hedge fund. He's a founder, chief executive officer and co-chief investment officer of Eliot Manager. Welcome Paul Singer. Martin Sen is the group chief executive officer for Zurich Insurance Group in Switzerland and is a member of the International Business Council. Welcome and delighted to have you with us. Before going with the debate, we have been asking the world what they think about this through social media. We have had some results, mostly 67 percent of the people that answered through social media agree that markets are mispricing geopolitical risks. But also we want to ask you and we are through your cell phones by very easily conveniently logging into that page, wf.ch forward slash vote. You can agree or disagree with the notion that markets are mispricing political risks. So I'm going to ask you to do this twice now and then after the debate as has concluded. And let's see if the debate has changed the mood and the opinions of this room. So let's really start to vote. See if you can log into that page and see if you can vote. We're going to take a few minutes to let you do that. This session is also being broadcast and it's also being widely discussed in social media. You can go, if you're in Twitter, you can go on hashtag wf15 and that is the sessions for the World Economic Forum and this one is also there. And it will also be broadcasted in YouTube. It means disagree, right? Yeah. So let's take a look at what are the results. 37 people have answered. And again, 70, 30 agree that markets are mispricing political risk. And let's hear the first panelist that is going to agree with that, is going to defend the notion that markets are not doing a good job of capturing that risk. And for that, we have Minister Jarensko from Ukraine. Thank you very much and thank you for this opportunity. I do agree that history has shown that markets have often mispriced the risk. I think there are several reasons why that happens and I think Ukraine is an example of that today. So I'll just walk through that argumentation. Hopefully, when I'm finished, the statistics will be in my favor and I won't have convinced you otherwise. I think that history has shown, for example, a 2008 global crisis that the markets weren't ready for what the systemic effect of that crisis would be and they mispriced and in fact that in fact contributed to the size of the crisis because the markets underpriced the risk that the system was going to collapse and that the turmoil would occur in the way it did. I think the Eurozone collapse has been also misjudged and overpriced in time. I think that it's overpriced because the expectations were not being achieved in the end and the Eurozone is today basically where it was before, despite all of the overpriced risk. I think there are three reasons why you're seeing this mispricing happen. First and foremost, I think investors are reacting to their own market appetite, not necessarily to the specifics of what's happening. They're looking at their own portfolios, their own managed risk and what they would like to achieve and where they are at that given moment. So in some cases, for example, with Eurozone periphery countries, it's gone back and forth. For my country in Ukraine, at one time before the crisis, perhaps that was risk that was underpriced. After the crisis, it seems that anything outside of the Eurozone has been overpriced. The second reason is it's a perceived risk. There is no objective risk to be priced and it's perception. It's the press, it's market sentiments. It's who does a better or worse job of presenting their case in the markets and how it's read. This emotional element is impossible to quantify perfectly. And finally, I think to a great extent investors tend to move en masse in directions that they move together both in and out of markets and in the pricing. They could be right or wrong and not many people are willing to buck the system. There aren't many Nouriel Rubini's willing to go against the masses in the market. Ukraine in essence has often seen this in the pricing of our risk. If you look at our real economic situation, it's been systemically overpriced from my perspective since the 2008 crisis. Our CDS spreads were extraordinary in 2009, predicting a default which never occurred. Ukraine maintained its payments and continued to be a good borrower. And I think to a great extent a lot of this mispricing occurs with Ukraine because outside of Ukraine people don't recognize or price in the resilience of the nation, the strength of the people, their willingness to pay the costs of change, which we saw during our Revolution of Dignity and thereafter now in the unfortunate war in Eastern Ukraine. I think also there's a misperception with Ukraine right now and when you look at our CDS spreads as to how large of a financial support package the country may need and or what that means. If you compare it, the numbers that have been in the press in The Wall Street Journal, the London Financial Times, the $15 billion in comparison to what Greece required on a per capita basis, this is a tiny, tiny sum of money. It is not an amount of international financial support that is so incredibly difficult to raise. It is a reasonable amount of money for a country of 45 million people. I think it's also important to note that the economic crisis is not simply a financial calculation for Ukraine. The economic crisis is in Ukraine created to a great extent because of both the war and the legacy of the corrupt regime that ended its term last winter a year ago. And today the Ukrainian government addressing all of these issues. It's addressing number one the corruption and moving very quickly and very meaningfully with an anti-corruption bureau with changes in the judicial system. Number two, we're moving very quickly and doing everything possible to support and end to the conflict in the east. Our president has said over and over, he is a president of peace. That is our goal. Our goal is peace. We are, yes, investing 5% of our GDP this year into rebuilding our military, but that is all to be in the proper position to defend our country, nothing more. And finally, the fundamental structural reforms that have not occurred in the past 23 years of Ukraine's existence are starting today with a very capable government, with a very reform-oriented government, and with changes each and every day that are being implemented. All of these elements, I think, are hard for the markets to price. They look simply at the statistics, simply at the numbers and not at the human element, which in Ukraine has been probably one of the key factors that make the markets wrong in their pricing of risk. As a nation today, Ukraine is stronger than the markets are pricing it. Thank you. Thank you, Minister Jerezko. Professor Rubini, Uriel, do you disagree with this? Well, you know, I'm some of the usually things that markets are not efficient, that the bubble can occur, that tail risk like financial crisis can occur, but I would make the following arguments. There are booms that are busts, there are mispricing, but the question is, do market misprice worse or worse than otherwise, geopolitical risk as opposed to economic and financial ones? And I'm not sure about that. I mean, there are some, first of all, unknown unknowns that are really major tail events. Last year in Davos, people said there might be a war between China and Japan. Markets were not pricing it. Guess what? That war did not occur, and so far, the tension had been reduced. The tensions in Asia between China and many of these neighbors, but that risk of a major thing is not going to happen. Think about terrorism. Yes, there was a terrible attack in Paris that had been attacked in London, in Madrid before. What's the chance of another 9-11 type of attack? I think it's very low. So if you have a very low probability of a major event, like a major war, a major terrorist attack, the fact that Ebola could become a global pandemic as opposed to be a regional one, are the markets really mispricing these things or not? Guess what? SARS, Ebola, and so on. Terrible. Thousands of people have died in Africa. It had not a global economic impact. Take the risk of a war in Asia has not occurred, and so on. Take another major terrorist attack. So things that are really major tail events that are very low probability by high impact. The question is, should markets price them in? Usually, when their probability is very low, probably markets are rational not to do so. Now, there are other events. Last year, you have the Middle East is a mess. It's not just ISIS, Syria, Iraq, but what's going on all over the Middle East, including, guess what? All prices instead are falling. There's been the Russian-Ukraine conflict and the potential global spillovers. There's been Ebola. There's been other tensions in many parts of the world. Now, the way I think of it is this way. Take, for example, the situation in the Middle East. What has happened last year is a paradox because all prices have collapsed in spite of geopolitical situation, but it is becoming worse, but compared with the past. In 1973, we had a global supply shock that was Yom Kippur War between Israel and the Arab Strait, embargo, all prices tripled. In 1979, we had Iranian Revolution, and other embargo, all prices tripled. In 1990, we had the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, shock to the supply of oil, all prices spiked. This time around doesn't happen. Why? First of all, in spite of the mess in the Middle East, take even Iraq, 90 percent of the production is in the South, Shia control, or the Kurdistan, and even the 10 percent of this module, nearby control of the ISIS, these guys are producing and trying to smuggle oil. So there's not been a supply shock to the supply of oil. Take Russia, Ukraine, terrible geopolitical impact, terrible on the economy of Ukraine, even on Russia, but there has not been yet a shock to the supply of gas from Russia to Western Europe. If that were to occur, of course the economic and financial implication will be severe. And not only there hasn't been a supply shock to oil in the Middle East, but now because of the shale gas and oil revolution, U.S., North America, because even the problems in the Middle East have led to more production this year in Iran, in Iraq, in Libya, there's a glut in the supply of oil. And guess what? Oil prices collapse because the basic balance between demand and supply is supplies growing much more than demand. And demand is slowing down because of the slowdown in Eurozone, in Japan, in China, and other emerging markets. So when you compare to the past, every misprice, the shock that comes from the Middle East in terms of oil, now there are other fundamental reasons why these things happen. Same thing with Russia and Ukraine. Actually, the market has been pricing significant impact on the economy of Russia and Ukraine. The currency have weakened, the stock markets have downed down, spreads have widened. The minister correctly says that maybe the CDS are mispricing, but guess what? Under some scenario, your public debt to GDP ratio might be closer to 100%. Under some scenario, the international community may not be willing to give a full package. Under some scenario, some form of orderly bail-in or extraction or reprofiling of debt could occur. I was in the White House when in 1999, we did one of the first examples of a reprofiling of debt, sovereign bonds, was Ukraine after Pakistan. So these events can occur and the market is saying there is some probability that the orderly restructuring of your debt is going to happen. It's not just the bail-in or bail-out. Some bail-in, some PSI can occur. I can see your argument why it shouldn't occur, and it's a legitimate argument, but markets are pricing a meaningful probability that the international community is not going to give you enough money and there's an orderly case for restructuring. So when you look at these risks, you have to think about them. Are they so large and significant that they have an economic and financial impact that the markets are not pricing them correctly? Of course, there is overshooting on the way up, on the way down, but markets are pricing these risks. Thank you, Nuriel Rubini. Paul Singer, you disagree with that? So far, we've been talking about markets as if independent actors, millions or tens of millions of investors are pricing the markets. This is not actually true in today's environment, and there are two major reasons why markets are mispricing geopolitical and other risks. The first one is very straightforward. The largest by far investor in the world's stock and bond markets, all on the buy side, of course, are the major developed world governments, the central banks. And what they've done is distorted the prices of financial assets so that you don't know what the actual price is. So I would actually put the word markets in quotes in this resolution. In fact, the United States central bank, the Fed, has been purchasing, has purchased the majority of the issuance of government a medium and longer term debt in the post-crisis period. At first, of course, under emergency conditions. But second, as is the case in Europe and Japan, because the fiscal authorities have not been taking the steps that every economist knows, would be pro-growth steps on taxes, regulation, trade authority, education. In Japan, currently the central bank owns one and a half percent of the capitalization of the Japanese stock market and they are about to embark on an even larger program. So if it doesn't work, meaning restart growth or restore growth to pre-financial crisis conditions, the solution is so far buy more, double down. And Europe seems on the verge of doubling down. So the first reason is you don't know what the price is in the absence of that buying, that buying is not millions of informed investors or investors that are trying to inform themselves about the correct price. And so what we have is, for example, in Europe, as we speak, the 30-year swap in Europe is trading at around 1.27 percent. And if anyone thinks that that price is A, the price that is a reasonable or fair price to invest, to meet your investment assumptions, your actuarial assumptions, your liability assumptions over the next 30 years, I think that's just wrong. B, giving, if you accept that price as, okay, that's the price that I can invest in 30-year bonds in Europe and there's a lower price, lower yield in Japan and somewhat higher in the United States. What about inflation? What about the possibility of inflation? Well, inflation is a byproduct and partially a byproduct of some of the geopolitical risks that have been described and that we all know exist. And 1.2 percent in Japan and 1.27 in Europe and 2.3 or something in the United States don't give you much room. The second part of, the second major reason why markets are, I believe strongly, markets are mispricing geopolitical and other risks is related to the first, but it's actually a different point. And it is given the pricing and given the still opaque and overleveraged financial system, the sensitivity because of herding, interlocking, and samely positioned investors, the sensitivity to risks is extremely high, and I'll give you an example in a moment, and the cushion to withstand risks is very low. And the example, of course, is the Swiss franc. It's because of this positioning that from 1.2 when the cap broke in the Swiss franc, it went directly in 10 or 15 minutes to 0.85 and then 15 more minutes back to 1.0. So these are two major forces. Thank you very much, Paul Singer. Martinsen, Paul Singer says that actually it's hard to talk about markets, that it is the big institutions. It's a big central bank, and you probably didn't mention, but also big institutional investors in the private sector. And that there is a concentration of power there that drives what we call markets, and that leads to misperceptions and mispricing. You disagree with what he said, right? Yeah, let me first stress that the risk report published by the World Economic Forum every year, and just been published again, has shown that geopolitical risk is seen as the number one threat now. This is the first time ever since we published this report that geopolitical risk is being positioned as prominently. Interstate conflict, governance failure, it is about state collapses are the main sources when you talk about geopolitical risks. And for us as a large-scale institutional investors, we managed 220 plus billion dollars and a couple of hundred billion more for customers. I must say that looking at the current positioning, I do not see any mispricing with regards to what the expectation is in the market versus our risk profile versus the expected return. Don't forget, the driver of return is risk. And as we have that as a notion, we have to always be aware of that, that this is factoring and pricing in, in the market as we move forward. Now, however, what is to say is that there is a growing geopolitical uncertainty. Naturally, we see that in the wards here, and we see that in the risk report, which cannot be effectively priced. Geopolitical risk cannot be effectively priced, and this ignorable has made one of these other points. When Ukraine crisis, and I just take that as an example, emerged the first time. We at Zurich, we took a meeting and we said, what are we going to do with our European equity holdings? What are we going to do with our German holdings? Because that potentially has an impact. And we decided not to move on the back of that because there was just sort of an uncertainty. You cannot capture and translate into a risk. And guess what? The German equity market and European market is at the moment trading at a high because you have to see that in relation to investment alternatives. It is not just one asset class against the other. It is all asset, it is all investment opportunities all together. And the major problem on the back of that is that the global economy is still very fragile, and there is limited availability to absorb major shocks, which we are seeing. Now, what the global risk report makes clear is that the very nature of geopolitical risks is changing. And it's not just interstate conflict, war or terrorism, which has impacted its economic policy. It is natural resources. It is cyber statecraft. It is populist sentiment in elections. This year, we're going to have within the G20, 45% of the G20 electorate is going through elections, naturally posing fairly drastic uncertainty on the back of that. And as and sure, we look very much at those micro-level risks because these are the ones which do affect the real economy players. And the real economy players, this is you, our customers, many of you, our customers. And obviously, you have this exposure to the capital markets. But what is very important when we talk about geopolitical risks to look at is, what is the impact on the business, not just on the financial market, how are you positioned with regards to the supply chain exposure and with regards to the impact on the balance sheet of an organization and not just of the financial markets? And there are a lot of businesses out there which are through this geopolitical risks, keeping in mind, again, risk is the driver of return, should see that as well as opportunity, if managed effectively, and not just only as a downside exposure. And what is on the back of that, absolutely essential, is obviously to have a full understanding of the exposure to geopolitical risks and to take the necessary steps to build up respective resilience. At the micro-level, then, these risks pose actually in front of our doorstep three forms. It's political risk. It is cyber. And I would also say what I've mentioned, very important supply change. And these take many forms. It is political violence and terrorism. It's increasing, Eastern Ukraine. It is social unrest, which is looting. It is exploration. We just had a metal firm in Bolivia putting up large claims as a, we are largest insurer for political risk, so we see these movements very effectively. It's about currency in convertibility. We have claims in Venezuela. On the back of that, non-honoring of server and contracts, Vietnam-based shipyard just posts similar claims to us as well. So there's a lot of movements on the back of that, and there's proof that geopolitical risks are growing. I should say that 2013, and most likely as well, 2014, we have seen the highest amount of claims out of political risk exposures. Having said that, it's also the highest capacity, but we do not see any demand of more risk mitigation. So there's more interest in the topic, and I would imagine on the back of the risk report that to increase further, but there's no more insurance is being bought at this time. So companies of all sizes are now victims to massive criminal or state-sponsored cyber attacks. Cybers, of course, the other nature which is sort of a result of this geopolitical uncertainty, and this means, of course, one has to prepare effectively for that. At the moment, about 43 percent of U.S. companies are expected to have suffered data breaches. 43 percent of all U.S. companies have suffered data breaches on the back of cyber activity in 2013. Now, in closing, what I should say that all of these exposures as well as others are captured in the supply chain. In fact, cyber attacks are within the top five supply chain's concerns. Companies prepare for it. They factor it in. They price it, which flows back into the real economy. And you must understand that each and every link of these exposures do, obviously, as well flow back to capital markets and financial markets if they then emerge, as we believe that financial markets are, say, reasonably efficient with substantial time-lapse. And we have to really differentiate between the short-term impacts and the long-term impacts of such a volatile in the market. And to me, the question is really is not whether the markets are mispricing geopolitical risks, but whether we have a full understanding of those risks and whether we are taking the steps to build resilience of finding the full understanding as these risks are more and more intercorrelated. They are more and more transported. They are very transportable on the back of globalization. And the full understanding of that is the basis then to build resilience and as well look to mitigate these risks. And on the back of that, I'm not surprised about the outcome, but I would make a strong argument that we have to differentiate the volatility short-term and the impact on financial markets, which is reactive. Financial markets are reacting. The example you took with the Swiss National Bank's action and the impact on the currency market, that was pretty clear response and effective pricing in. And we will find now the right balance as we move forward. Thank you very much, Martin Sen from the Zurich Insurance Group. So we have heard two very eloquent and well-argued positions concerning that markets are mispricing geopolitical risks. And we also heard two equally compelling and interesting and persuasive points of view to the contrary. So that's the debate. I know that each of the four panelists is eager to jump back and rebut and talk a little bit more about the issues. But before we do that, let me ask you to please hold it for a second. And let's take a few questions from the audience and from social media.  So please raise your hands and let us know what's your question if there is any. Then while we get that, let me read you one that came from social media. Concerning Mr. Frank Ludwig just tweeted, he says an optimum in Gini brings therefore the highest wealth of the nation and therefore reduces instability. Let me change that question and present to you the issue of inequality. Inequality is present in this conversation, has been present in the last couple of years in ways that was not there in the past. The whole distributional dimensions of policies and all that. Inequality is creating social unrest, is creating difficulties in governance, is creating and is driving and fueling some of the geopolitical risks that Martin St. mentioned that are identified in the World Economic Forum Global Risk Report. So let me then ask you and not to all of you, but just one of you or two, just say something about how a heightened awareness, first higher inequality in some countries, but also a heightened intolerance. The peaceful coexistence with inequality has ended, ended a few years ago. In the past the inequality, economic inequality was accepted, tolerated as a fact of life and it was not a very important issue. Today it is a very important issue around the world and that in some instances is fueling geopolitical risks. Nuria? A certain issue of inequality is an important one even if it's more of a slow motion kind of train wreck rather than a major tail risk that explodes that has significant market impact instantaneously. We're first to understand why it's happening and I think it's a combination of factors. First of all, technological innovation is becoming increasingly capital intensive, skilled buyers and labor savings that even these extreme views that robots and artificial intelligence are going to replace most jobs are going to get into singularity where you know Stephen Hawking say we'll have to go and colonize other planets because the machines are going to replace humans and replace the human race that might take a hundred years, but that's a risk. Secondly, trade and globalization, whether you like it or not, reduces jobs and incomes of low-skill and unskilled, initially manufacturing jobs, but now that services are becoming tradeable, many of those jobs are being off-short, but tomorrow instead of being off-short, today radiologists in Mumbai can do the same job as a radiologist in New York or looking at x-rays for one quarter of the salary, but tomorrow will be a piece of software we can replace it and those are going to be replaced. Third of all, we have also these win-or-take-all effects, the superstar effect that implies that the superstars in every field get more of the profits coming from the market of billions rather than millions. So all these things are happening. What are the consequences? I would say increasingly social and political unrest and instability, that's one economic and political consequence.  I mean, there's an extreme Marxian view that say the capital is going to self-destroy because you'll have this inequality of wages falling and profits rising, reducing eventually consumption. It's a slow-motion movement, but some of the weakness we've seen in consumption growth, even the U.S. may be driven by that. So you have to worry about it, but I don't think it's something that has a direct market impact. It's something that evolves over time. Paul Singer, inequality increases geopolitical risks. We should keep in mind that the interaction between the driver of economic stability in the world and economic growth, quantitative easing and zero percent interest rates, has as its goal, its primary goal, the boosting of asset prices. The secondary effect is a boosting of an attempted boosting of inflation or growth. Growth may be a third order effect. And so what is happening is that the mispricing that exists in worlds of financial markets because of the forces that I described is exacerbating inequality and at the very time that investors are doing well to very well and the things that investors and successful investors who own bonds, stocks, all kinds of stuff that's going up as a result, direct result of asset inflation, government policy, they're doing great. The middle class in the developed world is not doing great. And so the inequality is a function actually of government policy and social unrest is a function of the inequality and the seeming growing distortion. So you give more governments a role in driving inequality. Nouriel was more emphasizing technology globalization and other trends. Can you make a comment on what Paul said? Yes, asset deflation helps more the rich that they have more of those assets. But if you had not done the QE and these economies like the US ended up in a double deep or a triple deep recession, then losses of jobs and income for the low income individual would be more severe. So more of the benefits have gone to the wealthy, but the idea that this QE have helped onto the wealthy, think about the alternative would have had another recession to us and therefore the impact is different. If you had had more pro-growth policies in the fiscal tax trade area, you wouldn't have the need to support the global economy by 0% interest rates for six years and quantitative easing. Thank you. Martin, and I think also you wanted to chip in. Inequality is nothing new. We had inequality for a long, long time and we will continue having inequality. What I think is very new following the economic crisis is to have a very deep crisis of confidence. People losing hope, people questioning leadership, the question of political leadership, the question of business leadership. And you think that drives geopolitical risks. Which is naturally leading to more short-term reactions and response. It leads to populism, as I mentioned, very short-term. And that is obviously one where I should say inequality as such cannot be taken after cause of the volatility we have. It is rather to concern on how we deal with it in terms of bringing stability into the system with regard to geopolitics. The basis for that is let's be clear, if you talk about hope and expectations going back on integrity, say what you do and do what you say. And do that for the good and for the long-term and not just for the short-term and that's what we're confronting it with. And that's where financial markets keep responding to it and that's why we see this volatility. Thank you. I will just add that from our historical perspective over the last year, the inequality issue for us was about corruption.  The strength of civil society that comes out of this heightened awareness is now to check and balance on any new government, post-parliament elections, post-presidential elections, to ensure that the next government doesn't follow in the footsteps of previous governments. And so that heightened awareness, although it increases risk to some extent, it actually reduces risk in the sense that now the demands of civil society because of technology, because of knowledge awareness, the demands of civil society are so much greater that the next governments, our government, the government after us, will not be able to act in the same ways that previous governments have. Everything's been opened up to the public and that civil society's check and balance is a very positive thing for reducing risk going forward. So, and let me extend that point from Ukraine to the world. The point is that the heightened intolerance with inequality that we have seen in recent years is also combined with a heightened intolerance for corruption. You could also argue that corruption has always existed, but you can also argue that in recent years we have seen a higher intolerance. People are not willing to take it anymore in places like Ukraine and others. And also, your point to the fact that in discussions about the drivers of inequality, there is a lot of conversations about macroeconomic factors, QE, or fiscal policies and taxes or technology and trade and all of that. But I think it's very important to add the factor that the minister has mentioned that it's in a lot of countries inequality is driven by corruption. And that is a very important issue that also drives geopolitical risks. Let me ask again, if there is anyone that has a question or points and just, sir, in the back, just tell us your name and your affiliation, please. I'm Sushil Vadwani from Caxton Associates. I wanted to take issue with Paul Singer's point that QE should necessarily be accompanied with rising inequality. It's the current precise design of QE that has the effect Paul talks about. Instead, if QE had been used to provide money to finance fiscal expenditure, that it need not necessarily have had that effect. So for example, in Europe, if the ECB were to finance infrastructure spending through the EIB, A has a bigger stimulative effect on growth than buying bonds, and B doesn't necessarily have the inequality raising effect. Second example, some of us argued some years ago that QE should be used to essentially mail vouchers to everyone in the population. That, again, has a very different impact on inequality. Thank you, Paul. That was for you. Yeah. Talking about the design of QE and what to do with the money is interesting. And of course, all of these governments have the opportunity to create infrastructure and voucher and other helicopter money outcomes. But that doesn't cancel the point that if you're discussing inequality, one of the main forces exacerbating inequality at a time, it's not unique inequality. In fact, global inequality is narrowing as hundreds of millions of people, as you know, join the middle class across the globe. But it's widening to close to record levels, particularly in the United States, in the face of economic uncertainty among the middle class. And that kind of inequality growth is something that makes people edgy. And I think that's the point. In the 1970s, I believe, the last peak, depending on how you measure it, of inequality in the United States, it was a different relationship between investors and the middle class or the investing class, the beneficiaries of quantitative easing. So I think inequality is exacerbated by quantitative easing. I want to go back to geopolitical risks and their pricing. You had something you wanted to add to this, Nuriya? Well, you know, on what Paul Singer said, yes, all advanced economies need to do structural reforms to increase potential growth, regulation, taxation, you name it. But what's a constraint to low growth in the eurozone in Japan, U.S., is not the supply of goods because output is well below the potential that might have fallen. There is a problem of aggregate demand. So in the short run, you need to do monitoring fiscal stimulus and credit to boost aggregate demand while you're working on doing the structural reform to increase potential growth. So the two things are not inconsistent in each other. Abinomic was monitoring fiscal stimulus and structural reform, Terdaro. Dragonomics is about having structural reform. But even Draghi says, we have a problem with aggregate demand in the eurozone, and therefore we did not have the right monetary and fiscal policy. On the geopolitical risk or political risk, if I look around the world, yes, there is political risk. Syriza could win in Greece. Podemos in Spain, Renzi could fail in Italy. Le Pen could win in France. You have had the troubles of Russia and Ukraine, Argentina, Venezuela, Thailand. There are plenty of countries in trouble. But you look at the markets, every time this political risk, even national, let alone geopolitical rise, stock market correct, currency weakened, bond prices are adjust, CDS spreads widen, whether it is excessive or not, we can debate it. But actually markets are actually quite sensitive to the fact that more than just economic news, political and policy news and policy mistake have an impact on the economy and have an impact on the market. If anything, they've been more than fully priced in, I would say. Let me talk about another major geopolitical risk and how is it being priced, mispriced, understood or misunderstood, and that is low oil, low oil prices, something that has changed the world, that was not anticipated here last year or anywhere, in fact, and that is having consequences. The most obvious ones are in countries that are highly dependent in oil exports and are going to be destabilized or being destabilized by that. The usual list is well-known is Iran, Venezuela, Russia, others. But there are second-order consequences for low oil. There are consequences, for example, there is a wide variety of projects that are being canceled, postponed, that full exploration and all development energy projects that are no longer viable at the current prices, and these are also transforming the nature of risks. I don't want to go back to market risks. I want to center the conversation on non-market risks driven by political decisions. So I would like each of you to comment on the political consequences of low oil, beyond saying that all these countries that are oil exporters and big spenders are going to be stressed. We know that. So what are some of the second-order geopolitical consequences of low oil? Paul. It's not an accident that what our energy traders think is a one, roughly one million barrel a day shortfall in demand has caused more than a 50 percent drop in the price of oil. There's a case to be made, a good case to be made, that it's an engineered drop meant primarily to jostle not only alternative energy industry companies, but geopolitically actions against Iran, Russia, perhaps others that it has geopolitical impact. And I think that's very important. Let's talk about the United States just for a moment. The energy industry, the alternative energy industry is perhaps the growth story or the capital spending story, not that it's the bulk of it, but it's a major source of growth in the United States. The fact that the rug is being pulled out suddenly from the alternative energy industry in the United States has consequences that will radiate out. I don't think we can, at this early stage, just weeks after the collapse, days, weeks, whatever. It's just been in the last few weeks, assess all the follow on effects. But I think it's going to be very meaningful. Would you like to keep into this, Nuriya? I certainly disagree with Paul on what are the motivations of Saudi Arabia. Of course, people argue Saudi Arabia is trying to hit his enemies, whether it's Russia because they're not playing ball on Syria with Assad as opposed to Iran. That is the major geopolitical threat to Saudi Arabia. But if you think about it, having a loss of maybe 100 billion dollars of the reserves in Saudi Arabia because you want to hit Russia, you can spend 10, 20 billion of that, arm the rebels in Syria, and you can get more out of it. And the behavior of Russia is not being changed. The paradox with Russia is, by the way, that with sanctions and low oil prices, Putin is becoming more aggressive, rather than less aggressive. Why? Because his perception is that the West is out for regime change like we had with Saddam in Iraq or with Gaddafi in the case of Libya. If that's his perception, he's going to become more aggressive in the Middle East, in the Baltics, in the Balkans, in the case of Ukraine. So first observation. In the case of Iran, same thing. The threat is coming from Iran.  But low oil prices make more likely that the regime in Tehran is going to be likely to do a deal with the West on the nuclear stuff because they need to have the reduction of sanctions. So, paradoxically, it will be in the interest of Saudi Arabia to have high oil prices. So the regime in Tehran doesn't want to do a deal with the West. So this argument that the Saudis are out for geopolitical reasons, I don't think so. My view is that the Saudis are having just a typical behavior of an oligopolistic leader who's doing predatory pricing. You keep prices low for a while. You get rid of all the high marginal cost producer, shale gas guys, Venezuela, you name it, and you commit to a schedule of fixed investment and capacity so that everybody else is going to under-invest in capacity for the next few years. If you do that, in the short time you have low prices, but in the minimum term you'll have slightly higher prices in a larger market share. It's an economic argument. It's not a geopolitical argument for Saudi Arabia. I'll just add though that I think that the reaction of Russia, the reaction of President Putin to low oil prices is not necessarily predictable. What's happening today, his reaction today and his reaction two months from now may be very different. So I would say that low oil prices in this case potentially will have a positive effect, increasing the cost for him to continue this very expensive war that he started and he may begin to think twice at some point about the economic costs even though he doesn't like, as you say, some of the signals that he sees in that. From the other perspective it hits Ukraine in a negative way because as you say shale gas now becomes something that we had hoped for to help us with our energy independence and now becomes much less credibly profitable for those players in Ukraine and they're starting to step away from some of those projects. So there's a balance and it's unclear how to actually define in the end where these lower oil prices will take us. For a central point about the geopolitics of low oil is that a lot of these governments that are stressed fiscally and otherwise by your low oil are going to pick fights abroad to distract from problems at home. You will have more incentives for leaders to start using international frictions and international conflicts to take away from the very difficult situation at home due to budget cuts and all of the fiscal adjustments that they will have to face in reaction to low oil. So we are coming to an end and there are two things that we have left to do. First I'm going to give you two minutes to each of you to summarize again your points perhaps add a new perspective for and against the motion that markets are mispricing geopolitical risks. This is what your last shot at trying to persuade the audience and then we are going to take a vote again to see which side did a better job of persuading of changing perspectives on those around here and around the world. Minister. I'll just repeat that I think many of these risks are no longer market risks that are able to be priced. I think your comments Mr Sen about cyber attacks for example are such a there is such a great amount of unknown the reactions of individual political leaders to these changes in commodity prices and how they react whether whether they react in one way or the other. I think that the the risks the geopolitical risks that we're talking about are practically impossible to be priced properly. The markets are guessing but the markets are as often wrong as they are as they are correct. Nuria. Well some of the most extreme tail risk geopolitical are things on which we cannot assign a probability. What's a probability of a cyber attack that really destroys our economy. Is it one percent zero point five or five percent. What's the risk of another 9 11 type of attack as opposed to terrible episodes of terrorism that are contained. What's the risk that after SARS and evolves and other cases you get really a global pandemic rather than a localized kind of pandemic of one sort or another. What's the risk that you'll have a major war among great powers like between China some of the else. I think that first of all those risks are still extremely low and they're not easily priced and markets are worrying about these things and companies are taking action to deal with for example the risk of cyber warfare. So there is policy reactions and there are market reaction to try to ensure yourself against it either the operation or financially or otherwise. So we live in a world in which lots of very extreme and ugly stuff could happen but it's not obvious that markets are mispricing. Take even 9 11 9 11 did not cause the recession of 2001 that recession started with the internet bust at the beginning of 2001 and by the end of 2001 in spite of 9 11 because of the monitor in the fiscal stimulus we were already out of the recession. Yes the market for a few days panicked the fed flooded the markets as they should with liquidity because you would have had the run and guess what even the biggest geopolitical shock of our times 9 11 I was there I was going to teach at NYU that morning and I saw the towers in fire and collapsing even that in the amount of three months led to a huge economic recovery the United States and paradoxically the policy response monetary fiscal led to the buildup of the bubble that had started in housing in credit led actually to the global financial crisis. So even an extreme geopolitical event like a major terrorist attack may with the right policy response be contained and lead to economic recovery as opposed to a financial meltdown. So are we really mispricing this risk as opposed to knowing that are contained or containable even when they do occur. Thank you Paul Singer. There's no question that central bank policy over the last post the post crisis period has in adding the better part of 15 trillion dollars to the central bank balance sheets and zero percent interest rates throughout the developed world has caused a major distortion in asset prices distortion upward. Risk is mitigated as an investor by price and yield. If you have a margin of safety a cushion of protection in price and yield it's it's meaningful. There's convexity and bonds and the absence of yield and the absence of good value in equity markets exacerbates risk. And so my point is that I think by definition the actions of government which you could say and you might be right that it would have been worse in the absence of just quantitative easing without the appropriate fiscal policies. But in fact these policies have not this combination of policies has not restored growth and therefore I believe strongly that financial asset prices market markets are mispricing risk throughout the world. Thank you Martin. The risk report from the World Economic Forum has shown this year clearly that the chair politic risk is being seen as the number one threat. It is being recognized as the number one threat in all its components. It is being translated and we know that it has a high uncertainty and without the potential volatility which again is factored back into the financial markets. Every market participant every agent in the economy has the opportunity to act or not to react and is doing so and with that it is flowing back into the prices. Be at a different margins be at a different volatility but it is collected in the prices at the short term leading to high distortion at a longer term smoothing out and with that geopolitical risk is factored in the markets at the moment. Thank you very much. So let's see what the audience think. Please vote you again. You can go to that website and just say that if you agree or disagree with the notion that markets are mispricing your political risk. Yes agree no disagree please vote. We already have 22 votes 23 and let's see how this compares with the first vote. Okay there it is. So there is a slight change but we're still getting votes but an evenly divided audience now and it was not evenly divided when we started. So we have now a conclusion of which of the two sides was more persuasive. Natalia Anjarresco is the minister of finance of Ukraine. Uriel Rubini is a professor of economics and international business at NYU. Martin Sen is the CEO of Zurich insurance group. Paul Singer is the CEO of Elliott management. Please join me in thanking them for a wonderful job.


This is stock number 9J131. We are here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin We are checking out this 2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee This is our first 2019 Grand Cherokee to hit the lot So I thought I'd do a video real quick just to show the new features and everything about the vehicle This is a and this is an an overland high altitude package So you'll notice you get the Gray painted alloy rims. You get the blacked out Grand Cherokee lettering on the side Get the black chrome to rear exhaust there. This one does have a towing package. You get LED tail lamps So on the new videos, I'd like to do just a quick walk around so you can see the vehicle from all the different angles in Natural sunlight so that you can see how it's going to look outside and then we get up pretty close to it and Just check out all the features that are new for 2019 Give you a better idea of You know, what a 2019 has to offer you So like I said, it comes with the 20 inch painted gray alloy rims Really good looking it has Pirelli scorpion 265 50 r20 tires on them It's more of a highway terrain. I'd guess you'd say on there red velvet pearlcoat is the color You can see it has the LED running lights the LED fog lamps You have the front sonar on the bumper kind of hide it in there I'm pretty sure those are HID headlights. I'd have to double check the window sticker You get the grayed out 7-slotted grille with the gloss black Backing you get the grayed out Jeep lettering right there Now there weren't any design changes for the 2019 that I'm aware of Made mainly just styling cues different rims Very small stuff on the interior But nonetheless very good-looking vehicle very capable off-road vehicle This one does have that vista roof It's kind of like a black chrome finish on those exhaust tips there backup sensors LED tail lamps you get the grayed out Jeep lettering on the back This one of course has the power gate This one has the Harman Kardon sound system.  So those blink Blind spot monitoring heated mirrors has a start-stop technology So this is considered a high altitude two-package a two BS it has that package gives you the heated and cooled black leather seats driver's side lumbar Of course factory floor mats throughout you get the kind of sport pedals right there Harman Kardon sound system memory driver seat power windows power locks power fold-in mirrors They power fold out like so, too So this high altitude two package gives you All the safety features the advanced safety features that you'd expect On a high-luxury vehicle You get of course get the seven inch TFT display Really good clean-looking instrument cluster But part of this safety group is this adaptive cruise control. This also includes your forward collision warning cruise controls on the right Information center and Bluetooth audio controls on the left. This is a leather wrapped full leather wrapped steering wheel And that steering wheel is heated This is the 8.4 4c radio now the 4c radio means that you get the Android Auto and Apple CarPlay capabilities on this radio You get the gloss black finish on the dash there as well as the woodgrain trim dual climate control This is your lane departure warning. So when you go outside the lanes on the road It'll actually alert you that you're going out either through a tug-in-the-steering wheel or a Warning light you also have your perpendicular and parallel park assist right here and Like I said dual climate control up here You can go to your heated and cooled seat buttons as well as your heated steering wheel You can check out the backup camera without actually putting it in reverse This one has the eight speed automatic transmission. They got the easy shifter and no more electronic shifter of course, they did away with that a couple years ago and and Just kind of give you a quick overlook on the interior here Really good looking seats up here You have your homelink system and then you can control this power vista rough. So right now I got the sunshade Going back you can make it go back all the way so that You can have the full dual pane opened up really brightens it up a lot in here You also get your homelink system and then this is for the actual sunroof Got your map lights and then your rear gate button Down here. We have the quadra track to system So basically you get your four-wheel drive low your downhill assist control You also have the quadra lift system So this can raise or lower the actual ride height of the vehicle And then you of course you still have your snow sand auto mud and rock buttons right there that neutral feature is for flat towing and So that is flat towing capable. We'll take a quick look at the back seats and Just show you Back there Haven't changed much back here. It does have the latch child safety system Down here. You get two usb plug-ins plus a hundred fifteen volt hundred fifty watt plug-in And then there your heated seat buttons, of course you get floor mats back here, too and These seats go down with this latch right here the headrests go down like so and then these seats go almost completely flat which is I think one of the really strong points of the Grand Cherokee is how flat this back Storage area gets and how much room you actually do have once that back seat is down Makes it really easy to put stuff in if it's longer and Just really nice vehicles all the way around if you've ever driven one. They're amazing to drive and Yeah, so that's the 2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland high altitude two package and I'd like to thank you for checking out the video today If you want to see more HD videos like this one You can go to youtube.com Remember to like subscribe and share on this video and all the videos that you see there In fact in a second you will see a link to subscribe to our YouTube channel on your left a link to more new Inventory videos like this one on your right And if you have not been to our website on the bottom a link to this vehicle on our website click those check us out And we really look forward to helping with this super clean 2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee Thanks again