Greetings, my name is Christy Bear and I'm the assistant director of the Center on Finance Law and Policy. I am thrilled to welcome you back to our monthly blue bag lunch talk. Today our speaker is Peter Adriens and before I tell you about him you know that I am not happy until I have a chance to plug other Center on Finance Law and Policy activities and so next Monday I want to let you know that we are sponsoring a panel that's part of UM Africa week. It's called Fintech in an African context and we have some very cool found the founder of Migo Money, the founder of M-Pesa, the founder of I mean sorry and the former governor of the central bank of Nigeria all on the panel. So anyway it should be pretty good. I hope you'll come. If you click on that link then that's where you will register. So please join us for that. But today we're here to talk about environmental finance. Let me tell you about Peter Adriens. Peter is the person at the University that you reach out to when you want to make something happen and so if you look back through his bio he has found he is one of the co-founders of the University's Fintech Collaboratory. He's the founding director of the Center for Smart Infrastructure Finance. He has appointments at Ross Engineering, SEAS like he knows everybody. This is the guy that you want to know. His research focuses on data-driven digital business and finance models and specifically he looks at blockchain applications, smart cities, infrastructure and how to use technology to advance public financing for the greater good. So this term he's teaching an entrepreneurial business fundamentals class and a class on infrastructure finance and I also have to plug for a minute the new masters of engineering in infrastructure finance. So if you understood half of the things that I just talked about you're in for a treat and if you don't then that's okay too because the other thing that I like about Peter is that he can explain complicated things in a straightforward way which is the hallmark of a good teacher. So without further delay Professor Adriens I'll leave it to you. Well thank you very much Christy great introduction and great to see everyone here online. Of course it takes about 30 years to get to know everyone on campus so I'm going to have been around long enough to find the people in engineering and the business school SEAS and the School for Public Policy right? I mean as Christy mentioned I am co-founder together with the Center for Finance Law and Policy Michael Christy and Adrian Harris at Public Policy as well as our colleagues at the Business School and the Fintech Initiative in this whole new Collaboratory but that's actually not what I'm going to be talking about today. So I do have a course that I'm teaching in fall also on environmental finance and so this whole you know kind of integration between environmental finance and as we'll see in a little bit infrastructure and data and how things are moving forward in the current day and age I guess of you know new sustainability scrutiny in the financial markets is becoming very relevant to the topic of today. I should mention most of the the the topical areas it's going to be a bit of a finance talk though I promise no equations I'm going to have some charts but we're going to keep the modeling out of it but the two of the topics that I'm going to be referring to relate to a collaboration that we currently have with Nuvine. Nuvine is the investment arm of TIAA. TIAA of course is the teacher's pension fund of which the University of Michigan is the largest client and so they're also a major driver in in the sustainability space actually since 1989 before the modern definition of what sustainability was so they've been in the business for a long time and I'm going to be talking a bit about some of the work that we're doing in one of my one of my start-ups e-queries risk analytics related to this environmental or to the sustainability scrutiny so first off what is sustainability scrutiny let me see if I can can everybody see this yet or not yet let me go into is this forwarding for you or not yes we're good all right yes um so let's start with a couple of recent headlines and I'm trying to manage my gallery here recent headlines that many of you may have seen may have read most recently I mean the US was a little bit later to the game as as a relative to to Europe but the Fed chair Powell says central banks must help address climate change because of implications on monetary policy bank regulation financial stability is sustainable business and finance just just a couple of days ago a big statement coming up investors are finally waking up to the SDGs the sustainable development goals but sort of question is how do we quantify risk how do you quantify risk from ESGs a big elephant in a room and then three out of environmental finance which is a blog I use very often not only my classes but also my research that actually investors are starting to use in finance you're starting to use ESG data environmental social and governance data as almost the canary in the coal mine for credit rating so for you know your your standard imports or moody's credit rating so so the sort of this this connection that's being talked about between climate and sustainability and financial stability and financial regulation and whatnot and it's still a very confusing at this point a very confusing topic because financial materiality is not very often sort of linked into this whole sustainability discussion a lot of it is still about we got to do better we got to develop sustainable practices it's good for long-term growth it's good for your stability and whatnot what I wanted to do is a little bit more scrutiny and go a little bit deeper on how all this sustainability links into sustainability conversations link into materiality link into issues around not just climate change but sustainability more broadly so and let me start out with the financial stability board there's not too many of you may be familiar with the financial stability board financial stability board was essentially put together in 2009 after the last financial crisis by the G20 at the Pittsburgh meeting at that time and so basically the whole idea was well let's set up a board and figure out I guess how we can standardize not yet climate but in general other risk disclosures that are currently not being disclosed by either corporates or other players in the market by 2005 the the financial stability board launched a task force on climate related financial disclosures because as you see here on the left the argument is that climate related risks are a source of financial risk and it's being talked about as you just saw in the headlines over and over again and the argument is if it is a source of financial risk in a core and a source of market risk it falls squarely in the mandates of central banks of supervisors to ensure that the financial system is resilient to these risks now the big question is that might be true as a statement the big question is how do you actually then quantify that or how much of an impact does climate change and all these ESG and sustainability disclosures that that corporations as well as public governments are issuing how well are they related to financial risk and how do we quantify the how do we look at so the perturbations of these financial risks in the market on the right I mentioned that you know my climate related risk is non-diversifiable so it's not easy for a corporation global corporations that are currently operating in a market to diversify away from climate risk because one way or another whether it's through water whether it's through temperature whether it's through droughts or storms or whatever you are exposed and therefore there is a financial impact now there just to be sure there are currently no mandatory disclosures so even that the task was a climate related disclosure this is not a mandatory disclosure it is a it is a suggested disclosure on how how corporations should keep track of how their operations and performance are being impacted by climate change and so we're looking at issues such as revenues by of the company I mean how stable are those expenditures assets and liabilities and of course in assets and liabilities in the context of carbon we talk a lot about stranded assets right so a lot a lot about facilities of corporations that cannot maintain or continue productivity under current either carbon guidance but also cannot maintain productivity as a result of of water impacts as a result of climate I'm going to talk a little bit about that as well and then of course there is the whole question regarding you know is climate impacting you know how how corporations as well as banks actually finance finance new projects and new programs so so there is a guidance structure here and this kind of gives you a very high level 30 000 foot overview right so we're basically we're looking at on the one hand all the risks I guess that corporations and I'm going to be extending it also to local governments later on in my talk but are impacted by policy and legal technology technology deployment or or technology non-deployment market risks right market risks the whole perception around climate change and how that's impacting customer base and then of course the whole I mean reputational and and and other risks on the other hand we have the the new opportunities right the opportunities of resource efficiency a lot of talk about resource efficiency I'm going to talk a little bit about resource water usage and consumption but also energy sources that are being procured most recently even though I didn't help him write the Keystone pipeline some of you heard about that that of course he was allowed under to proceed under the Trump administration as soon as Biden came in office on day one he killed off the Keystone pipeline Keystone responded right away and said wait wait we're going to be pumping all our oil through this pipeline using renewable energy well it wasn't enough to to actually make a difference I mean the project is still not not moving forward but so the use of of you know how how new energy sources are being used in corporations and in projects are all sort of new opportunities for corporations to actually respond to the risks on the left right but of course all of these have financial impact from an income perspective from a cash flow perspective and from a balance sheet perspective and that in turn has an impact on the capital markets and on how one discloses once once risks so the what I'm going to be probing here a little bit is well we don't really have standardized or benchmarked ways to disclose this information and if there is no benchmark or no standard neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any other organization is going to mandate that corporations are going to be disclosing these kind of risks because as I said there is really no common standard at this point so we're still very much in the exploratory stage the good thing is that information is starting to pop up right and so so let's talk about ESG because whereas some of you may have heard about TC at TCFD I don't know TCDF I guess I got dyslexic here for a little bit so task force and climate related disclosures actually has a relationship to ESG and many more of you may be familiar with ESG which is an equally confusing concept that is sort of all the aspirations I guess that corporations and different aspirations by by industry sectors have on how they will either disclose the risks or manage the risks but again there is no benchmark I mean you look at them in Thomson Reuters you look at MSCI you look at Sustainalytics you look at all these different you know ratings providers and they're all going to look at ESG ratings which are in many ways tied to you know to to climate and to social and to risk management and to governance of the operation it's not again not standardized right so if if neither TCDF is required or standardized nor ESG being standardized or required then how on earth are we going to bring the two of them together and say we have to disclose our our material risks well what is the what is then the baseline right I mean both of them are related but both are equally poorly specified I mean despite the fact that now we have a sustainable um um hello the standards board in in California that's trying to standardize how we disclose ESG risks and and despite the guidance that comes from the financial stability board through the TCFD on how we disclose metrics and targets risk management strategies strategy and governance the big question is are these ratings even if they're connected these ratings that might relate to your TCFD a good measure of material risk or returns right so that's ultimately what we want to probe right it's that that that scrutiny in the markets has to at some point boil down not to what we call metrics creep you know again talking about this here ESG ratings you see I mean a lot of pizza that's sliced up in many different ways so we have ratings providers that come up with more and more metrics the question is are they materially relevant and if they're not then we're running into problems in how we're going to be disclosing information that we need to disclose so what's this financial scrutiny that I'm talking about here two things and two things that are very related right so one do risk disclosures condition capital for sustainable investment and conditioning capital for sustainable investment really means is capital that gets used to invest in companies in projects in different sectors whether it be it's agriculture or mining or whatever it might be does does that take into account these ESG or sustainability risk disclosures or do the sustainability risk disclosures provide a financial incentive for corporate sustainability corporations disclose a lot too but how material is it to the company so how material is it to investment to the investment side and how material is it to to the corporation so I want to sort of go beyond saying we need to disclose everything to saying well it's important that we understand what the matter reality is what the impact is of these of these disclosures so connecting the two dots that the capital side and the corporate side and for those though I didn't put the link in here but this sort of evolved out of a conversation that I I had for a long time with John Allen at the School of Environment Sustainability Ravi Anupindi at the Ross School of Business and that we essentially structured as a talk for Earth Day at 50 last March so almost a year ago we did talk about conditioning sustainable conditioning of capital and that the talk is actually available online so let's talk a little bit about this and we're going to start sort of at a at a top level here right so does ESG scoring have financial materiality and the indicators and these are indicated this this is 2016 through 2019 these are not my data this is from MSCI MSCI is a is a an index provider but MSCI spun out of Morgan Stanley that's what the MS stands for spun out in almost 20 years more than 20 years ago and they look at risk right but they also have a group called the ESG research group within MSCI so they set up sustainable indexing and they've been looking at sort of sustainability for a very long time for about 20 years in from a financial side so not from an environmental disclosure side not from a total tons of carbon or total acre feed or square or cubic kilometers of water or from biodiversity but really looking at this through a financial lens right and what we see here are sort of three pieces of information on cost of cost of capital and this is this is the the cost at which the cost to a corporation to get debt I guess acquire debt from banks or or to sell their shares in the market and get the returns from that and what it lists here what it compares here companies that have a low ESG rating and companies that have a high ESG rating and they got the other quartiles in between right so this is the bottom actually bottom quintile right the top quintile and you got the other ones in between here right and this is for the USA for Europe Japan so total cost of capital cost of equity and cost of debt so so the debt is probably easier the easiest to understand for most of the audience that is if a corporation wants to expand right build a new facility expanded operations and whatnot and it goes to the debt markets to actually get a loan the debt market to whomever the bank is the investment bank is looks at the corporation looks at where they're going to be putting that that facility but also looks at how that company manages it manages its risk and what we're seeing for example just here on the right right between dark blue and orange that there is a significant impact of whether a company is is I guess completely transparent in disclosing its ESG risks or not disclosing or very poor poor or not disclosing its ESG ESG risks i.e. the cost of debt is lower for a higher ESG rated company for a lower ESG rated company as I said these are data from that were currently available 2016 through 2019 we're going to keep 2020 for now out of any kind of financial analysis because as we have learned I mean it's going to be quite an anomaly in every every forthcoming analysis so and the reason for that is that that high ESG rated companies I mean companies that disclose and understand a lot of their factors that they are exposed to that expose their their future growth their future revenue their future operational capacity of facilities their future maintenance of their assets and whatnot I actually have more resiliency the more resiliency to to future I mean climate and social and other types of impacts under operations right so higher ESG rated companies tend to be less exposed to systematic risks than low ESG rated companies this isn't just climate this is right now just this is ESG and ESG has ESG in it so e the climate technically would fit in e right under the environmental however climate means more than carbon we very often tend to take a very reductionist approach and look at climate as being carbon climate is much more than carbon because it looks also about where you operate how you operate how you engage with the community where you operate etc etc but what we're seeing is that these high ESG rated companies are less exposed and therefore they're rewarded by the market in actually having to pay less for their debt right so that's a great sort of initial step so there is actually some materiality in disclosing that information to the market so so let's look at let's drill this down because ESG is sort of everything but the kitchen sink as you just saw before right it is all the factors when you got the three pillars you got the e the s and g and under e under s and under g you got multiple different factors that are measured in many different ways so so there is sort of a lot of uncertainty in looking at that bucket bucket of data so let's look at one specific one for example just water risk and frankly i mean i am very involved in water risk and when i go to climate conference or investor conferences many investors now will look at climate through a water risk lens because they say water risk is local you can say a corporation has a certain exposure a carbon exposure but its water exposure is very local based on is the facility in the u.s exposed the facility the northeast south south the southwest uh central america europe south africa where are its operations right so they're going to these very specific localities gives you and they're looking at the weather impacts and the climate impacts both of them in these regions sort of gives you a reading on potentially where the water risk exposures are and here's some data so cdp which is a nonprofit out of in london actually they're also in new york cdp stands for carbon disclosure project it started as a carbon disclosure project but they have actually a water disclosure group within cdp so they look at the water report and so some some ideas here 75 percent the largest reporting companies identify high higher water risks year and year and high water risk is both a risk from the perspective how much you use the quality that you use the access that you have to it the competition that you have with other water users etc etc etc right and so you see some numbers here on on financial impact right but the question is i mean this financial impact is sort of calculated by others right that is not really a disclosure necessarily by the company as in you know we have this much less that we could be producing it's sort of more an analysis by the financial markets of for example mining companies or power companies or biotech and other companies on how water is impacting first different operations the question is would it be rewarded would the company be rewarded if it makes an investment in water risk as part of esg and as part of tcfd right is is is it rewarded when it makes that that investment and so one of the things that we've been looking at is something called a water beta because again when i talk about the capital markets i mean initially we're going to be talking about it from the perspective of of the investment community that looks at these companies and then engages with these companies and say hey you've got a problem in this locality that locality with that particular plant and whatnot and so we formulated something called water beta this is done with a a lot of partners including msci including morgan stanley including more recently nasdaq and other types of of organizations we will look at how much volatility in share price and how much premium in share price could be realized by a corporation if it manages the volatility that is caused by water i.e indirectly through climate change um climate change impacts and beyond so water beta is something that we kind of map as a as a risk here right relative to financial beta and by the way beta what when you say beta in the financial markets it automatically means volatility it automatically means risk so financial beta is really about the system the systematic risk so risk that every company is exposed to relative to the global market and water beta is a specific company's risk relative or related to water relative to its index right so now we can start seeing that different kinds of companies right so basically above one means you're more more volatile than the market below one you're less volatile than the market and then here you have a range too so now here depends on what industry you belong to whether you're you have high water risk you got low water risk and it impacts your performance on the capital markets so healthcare you know as a different impact uh impacts impacted by a lot of water risk oil and gas uh food and beverage more so than than than systematic risk financials impacted more by systematic risk you look at our companies like mining companies and energy companies a lot of global market risk and and um and water risk right so it becomes kind of a way to triage your companies in the capital markets and here's something I forgot to say because most in the audience probably come from or think about uh you know we need better policy to regulate and govern our corporations and I don't disagree with that however the the the the the tax that we have taken sort of following TCFD is no no no no let's look at where the market signal is is there a market signal that would prompt a company to become more sustainable as opposed to a policy signal that forces a company to become more sustainable it's kind of like you know the stick in the carrot that we're trying to bring together so if we look historically at before at the performance of companies in these different spaces if we look at an at an index so benchmark for example uh the um this is a this is an index of companies where we incorporate water risk in how you allocate companies in a bucket of companies that banks invest in or pension funds invest in so basically companies with high water risk we allocate less off and companies with low water risk we allocate more off and of course this changes every quarter this changes every year what we see is we have a a constant outperformance when we take into account water risk relative to the benchmark and it started breaking out around i mean the date is not on here because it's kind of a cartoonist version of the real data around about 2013 or so 2013 is when we started seeing a separation of water really becoming an additional risk factor that the market started looking at relative to the benchmark in the benchmark in this case is an is an index that is not adjusted for water risk so water risk actually commands a risk premium right over and above all the other risks that corp that companies are exposed to and so the water beta that volatility risk is essentially kind of that difference between the benchmark and the and the water risk adjusted water the new water risk adjusted benchmark so the question you're asking probably is now why is this line higher than that line because this is performance right this is return so why is a high water risk index better performing uh-huh because we discounted the companies that at high water risk and we essentially put a premium on the companies that have a low water risk and that's why you get an outperformance i mean in fact we can start seeing that depending on a company and i'm just going to disclose one here because we're starting to work a lot with the japanese so japan and europe the japanese market and the european market are very bought into disclosing their risks to the tcfd american companies are not that much bought into that yet i mean it's coming but they're not quite there yet so it's mainly the japanese and the and the european markets and so when you look at it this is asahi some of you might know asahi from asahi beer right so so they command a an additional premium share price premium about three percent over the benchmark by managing their water risk right so you can start seeing financial matter reality so far not just in borrowing money from the market but also a share price premium that you can command in the market and so a lot of that so esg is nice but esg and and and tcfd related to financial metrics really drive market forces right let's move forward um so let's look at uh let me move forward to to green bond so let's look at actually this title here carried over apologize for that so what about the fixed income market so let's move from the stock market to the fixed income market because many corporations they issue bonds right sometimes they just issue plain vanilla bonds and sometimes they issue um uh green bonds right we've seen a lot more green bonds including from microsoft and amazon and other companies the big question is is there a benefit in doing that aside from having a green bond i mean does it have a carry a market premium all i'm showing here is so what this should say is what is the impact on the uh on the the fixed income market so green let's first look at at the green bonds so green bonds are issued both by government governments and by corporations and right now we're just going to worry about the corporations when we look at the corporations what is a lot of that invested in now you can look at well so that the percentages of where the green bonds are actually invested in and this looks great when we have investment of green bonds in transportation in buildings buildings and energy in in water transportation all of that so i mean this is fantastic the problem is the green bond market is still only a couple of percent of the total bond market so part of the problem that we do not have more green bonds than we should have i mean it's 400 billion right about 400 billion but there is close to you know 80 trillion in uh in in bonds overall right so it's still a very small percent so one of the challenges is that perception of higher cost for issuers so this is an interesting thing too on materiality so if one can demonstrate that a green bond not only looks great for a company to issue because you're investing in green technology and in everything else that's sustainability if there is actually a market signal that tells you that you know what it's not only good for you from a you know from a marketing perspective it's also good for you from a from an issuance perspective from a cost perspective now we're looking again at financial materiality and we're starting to see some of that these are early data and this is just data over over almost about a year these are not hours so the materiality in the green bond yield so one of the ways of looking at green bond performance and cost is by looking at the yield to the yield spread so basically the more volatile the more volatile a bond or riskier the more risky a bond the higher the yield would be right so what we're starting to see is over time that the spread of conventional bond yields over over green bond yields is starting to starting to decrease so the basis points are starting to decrease so so what happens is that that essentially over time we're starting to see that green bonds are becoming cheaper than vanilla bonds than non-green bonds even though the underlying risk is the same I mean if I'm a corporation and I want to issue a green bond versus a regular bond the risk of the bond is essentially the price of the bond the credit rating I'm getting for the bond is going to be the same because the credit rating is based on the credit of the credit rating of the company so if I'm apple and I issue a regular bond I issue a green bond it's all based the interest rate that you pay is all based on the on the risk of of the company itself so it doesn't really matter whether it's green or not where it does become important is what the demand is for these bonds right so the demand for the bonds is going to sort of drive kind of that that risk premium and hopefully drive the risk premium lower so what we want to see is that the yield goes down that we get a lot more demand for green bonds and that basically investors perceive green bonds to be less risky and other bonds so here here we see the difference so this corporate ESG score matters so now we look at green bonds where we layer on top of that whether or not the company is a high ESG scoring company or a low ESG score scoring company so when you're a low ESG let's first do the highest G scoring company when you're high ESG scoring company what we see over here is that the yield of the let me see a oops a lower yield of of the of a green bond for high ESG scoring companies that what we see for low ESG scoring companies so basically if you're a company that does not disclose any of its ESG risk and you're issuing a bond you're not going to have as much demand for your bond whereas if you are a company that is a high score of ESG risks and you issue a green bond there's going to be much more demand for your bond when there's much more demand for the bond what's going to happen is that the yield of the bond the yield is is inverse to the demand right so when there's a lot of demand for a bond the yield will go down and actually the bond becomes cheaper over time and less risky over time which is a great market signal because it tells you look disclosure ESG risks issue green bonds and over time your bond will become more attractive to it will become attractive to investors there's a lot of demand from investors and becomes cheaper to the to the payer so we wanted to go beyond that and say you know what the green bonds are only two percent of the total bond market there is a little more bonds out there right that are vanilla bonds and so this has worked out one of my students is doing one of my students Dan Lee is doing and she's looking at at the the plain vanilla bonds so mainstreaming green bonds so we're going to go to the vanilla bonds we went beyond green bonds only the ones that are triple b rated or higher right and we wanted to see if you just issue any kind of bond and you just you disclose your ESG risk or you do not disclose your ESG risk so we actually set the bar lower than before remember before we had a green bond and we had high and low ESG rating so now we have a non-green bond a plain vanilla bond and we're looking at do you disclose your ESG risks or do you not disclose your ESG risks and what we're starting to see so we looked at all bonds that were issued over the past 15 20 years across all these different sectors of the economy and one of the things that we started to see is a is a change again in how the bonds are being perceived just by companies that are disclosing their ESG risk so basically telling the market that you understand what your environmental social and government risks are actually gives you a 10 basis point decrease on the spread or on the risk of your bond which is great right because it's again a market signal where you disclose your ESG risk the market response you have a lot of buyers and investors that want your bond because of a lot of high demand for that bond the yield spread goes down the risk goes down right and so therefore the cost of that bond goes down so and there is a bit of a difference at the time of issue at the time of issue we have plus numbers and after we have negative numbers why is that well it's kind of like you know issuing all your risks to the tax man right the more you disclose the riskier you appear right to finish at the time of issue of the the bond you know the bond is viewed to be more risky but then after you start trading when people understand I guess and and the liquidity of that bond over time people start understanding how our corporation is managing its risk the the risk of the yield goes down so basically what it says is ESG disclosure results in a lower risk bond after trading so again we have a positive signal we have a positive signal from ESG disclosure on your performance in the in the in the your share price performance in the market on the borrowing costs for debt on the bonds that you're issuing so so far it's all positive that's part of your materiality so now I want to just go to something that goes beyond the corporates and the corporate the the municipal the public sector doesn't fit within TCFD I just have one two more slides here so these are the municipal bonds so these are a whole different set right so those not familiar with the municipal bonds this is sort of our universe in which municipal bonds have invested in over time right municipal bonds are are a very significant fraction of the total bond market and that's sort of a lot of the work that we're doing with Nouveen which is that TIA investor and third largest holder of muni bonds so basically they said you know why should companies even disclose why should governments or cities counties municipalities disclose their ESG risk we're just going to rate externally we're living in the in the era of big data we're going to gather all data we can find about a city about a county about a state and all the bonds that they issue to all this stuff we're just going to rate it we're going to rate it using ESG models and now we want to find out to guess whether you know the underlying should I say the underlying ESG metrics intentional or not of any municipality actually start making a difference in in in the bond market so we're rating all these models we've been looking at models across water and hospitals and electric and city and schools and higher education and now we're looking at them in transportation everything else we we look at sort of different ways and how we could start looking at all these municipal bonds and I said their third largest holder of muni bonds the current market of muni bonds is about 3.8 trillion dollars outstanding right so essentially screen all these 40 000 issues for this particular this particular owner right and look at sort of how different bonds spread out now what what nuvin will do with that once they have that information they will bundle the top quintile and the bottom quintile and they sell it to you and me for those of you that are taa right so you can actually go into your pension fund and select you know your bond fund and you will get a different kind of performance but now think about it that's some of the underlying metrics that are part of your sustainable bond fund may actually have been generated by the University of Michigan which is I think pretty pretty cool so we're not there yet we don't know yet to guess how a high ESG a low ESG rated bond municipal bond fund is going to perform we don't yet know what the market signal is going to be however there is some hope and the hope is this municipalities as I mentioned earlier also issue green bonds a fraction right just like corporates issue green bonds but it's only 2 percent of the 80 trillion dollars in in the bond market the corporate bond market municipalities also issue green green bonds but it's a very small fraction of the total municipal bond market so when you look at the green municipal bond market since about 2016 and this is not our work this is work it was just published last year we're starting to see a premium there as well of a basis point so if there's anything that municipalities want more than anything else particularly post-covid is let's source our capital for our infrastructure for all the stuff we want to build as cheaply as possible right and so the less you have to pay for your bond the better right over time and so what we're starting to see is that the yield spread and this is secondary that's once once a green municipal bond start trading that we're starting to see a spread between between a vanilla bond and a green bond a green municipal bond so the green municipal bond becomes a more trusted more in demand less risky bond over time just like the corporate bonds corporate green bonds or corporate bonds that are disclosed by that are issued by ESG disclosing corporates also become more attractive so just a couple of take-home messages here because there's sort of a lot of data I went through but the the basic point was does disclosing your risk or does even managing your risk or does understanding your ESG and climate risk actually matter in the capital markets are the markets starting to respond is there a market signal as well as the the the the typical policy signals so the policy signals that most of us many of us look at is there a capital market signal and the way so the sustainability scrutiny as I argued is going to be a necessary condition for disclosure and materiality pricing right and immateriality pricing ultimately will really help scaling all the sustainability work that is I mean to be honest still fairly fringe it's sort of it's not it's a fraction of the market is this if we can make sustainability material and we have a material signal can we can sustainability become a mainstream financial signal that essentially will drive the way how we invest in infrastructure in corporate infrastructure or in municipal infrastructure so ESG disclosures are becoming increasingly material in terms of cost of capital so both debt and equity in terms of bond yield spread tcdf disclosures which are very closely related to ESG factors and metrics they have to be financially material right because otherwise the market won't respond I mean that was the premise of TC TCFD I don't know why I will see TCDF I must be dyslexic so it is TCFD scalability will be improved when actual price signals emerge and become stable or can be benchmarked across sectors and geographies right and that's something that everybody has been looking at there's actually even still papers out there that right now say we're all hoodwinked by ESG because ESG right now is a lot driven by metrics in the physical world that are not well translated in the financial world and if you can translate in the financial world it's very hard to know how to respond to them a corporate engagement in disclosing ESG risk under TCFD guidance is likely to become more facilitated when these financially material risks can be measured and verified and this is actually something that we are doing with the Japanese a Japanese company that is working with practically all holdings of the Nikkei 225 is to actually start giving them a financially material metric to disclose their water risk for their TCFD disclosures such that their share price can sort of improve or capture a premium this is the last thing I wanted to say it's a lot of information and as I said it's really sort of taking the the capital markets angle instead of the policy angle to sort of figure out where we meet in the middle thank you awesome thank you before we let's go ahead and just jump into questions and so we'll go Caitlyn and then Daniel Caitlyn do you want to unmute yourself and then just ask yeah that'd be great thank you so much and thank you for joining us professor Adriens absolutely my question is in regards to the different elements of ESG investing right they're an inclination for the more I guess tangible elements of ESG ratings to be moving towards carbon measurements I feel like that is probably the most quantitative measurement but I guess going along with that how will more qualitative factors such as social implications be brought into these ratings or do you think that they need to be ratings in and of themselves separately that's a very good question so it's sort of I mean your question in part is an aggregate metric right the whole question of aggregate versus versus sort of more specific metric all the indicators in the market right now are that people are probably going to be moving away as far as this materiality is concerned from ESG the value is going to be in the pillars and the factors so ESG becomes part of factor investing but an aggregate ESG value in the financial markets is probably slowly going to sort of become more granular to figure out what can you actually measure having an impact on future growth and what are more intangible factors that are going to be part of sediment factors right so the sort of sediment factors and the real operational kind of risk factors and I think that's the direction things are going in fact when I talk to MSCI and to many of the other providers in the industry just recently had a call with Refinitiv and with NASDAQ they now get calls from specific pension funds from wherever they are is to actually develop a very specific index specifically on one metric out of the entire ESG universe to try to figure out I guess how to improve just on that so I hope that that answers your question if not directly in a roundabout way absolutely thank you so much really interesting um Daniel and then Allegra thank you thank you professor for presentation hey Daniel I guess the question that came to mind as we're presenting is how much do the ESG ratings correlates with firm performance right historical performance right to sort of try and tease out of the causality versus correlation right because maybe investors just look at other metrics that also correlate with ESG there's a paper that just came out out of the financial literature and the title is aptly the app title is aggregate confusion in that it does not well so the sort of two things one ESG ratings are a very poor characteristic of ESG risk because there's so many different ways and poor benchmarks on which they are being measured there was some degree of agreement in some sectors and there was a lot of disagreement in other sectors so and a lot of it has to do with I mean this actually your question reminds me of when I started going with this whole water bed and Aquarius to the capital markets and I went to minute for about a year or so I went between London and Frankfurt and Singapore and New York and whatnot and a couple of times I made it on to the trading floor and I started talking to some of the folks that were you know actually doing the real-time analysis and I said okay how do you incorporate water risk you said we don't how do you incorporate ESG risk you said well we don't really there's so much else to keep track of so then the question was a bit how would you incorporate it so well I mean if you have something within what you're measuring that is sort of a regular risk for a certain type of company or for a certain type of sector we can actually incorporate it and know what to do with it I guess in our in our risk assessment and I said wait a minute I mean so if you have two companies that are exactly the same say two mining companies to semiconductor companies whatever it is and one is a higher water risk user or a high carbon emitter and the other one is a low water risk user and the low carbon emitter the low one is a better one right and he said well to you it is but these these numbers in terms of carbon and the numbers in terms of water as in tons of carbon or square or cubic kilometers of water are no financial risk metrics I have no idea what these companies even the high water risk in the high carbon risk company is actually doing to mitigate its risk such that it affects its price performance its credit risk it's everything else right so it's the the the devil is in the translation between the ESG risk and the financial risk and that's why I said look we need to have more research that goes on in that starts looking from the capital through the capital markets lens right to tease things out now that said there are many different groups including a Harvard and elsewhere that are building all sorts of statistical models as well as machine learning models to try to tease out which factors make sense there was a recent study was done by Deutsche Bank and I know it's not the best example because it is in the news for various bad reasons but they did one on ESG and sort of corporate performance and the only factor that statistically stood out was retention programs of companies and that was not in 2020 by the way this was before COVID retention programs and pension programs of companies those were the two ESG factors out of everything else that really explained the difference I guess of high ESG a low ESG so so this you know it's a very tough place to be and so that's why we start looking for these market signals and that's also back to the earlier question that was asked why aggregate ESG is going to be a continue to be a very tough sell and people are going to start going more towards discrete and more granular factors within ESG and looking at either sentiment side things or operational side. Allegra and then I have one more question to ask and we'll wrap up go ahead. Great thank you so much professor for this non-boring talk about green bonds I've been to a lot of talks about green bonds and this one was not boring and so congratulations that was great. My question is about disclosure and reporting standards you know and different stock markets what what you see is the value or leverage of having different stock markets create their own mandatory reporting frameworks I'm thinking here of the Johannesburg stock exchange with their mandatory integrated reporting from assist now almost a decade ago to something like the NASDAQ that doesn't have any of these so do you think requiring ESG very granular ESG reporting at the level of stock markets makes sense as a point of leverage or is it really at the national you know like the SEC and you know the Hong Kong reporting commission level that would make the most difference in your mind thanks. That is and well first first of thanks for your comment regarding the green bonds I think this whole yield spread is a very a very cool thing and relating it to ESG disclosure your other question is very dear to my heart because it does it did become a very recent problem even in our own analysis that yes it will to a large degree become also stock market specific so not only is there not a benchmark on ESG there's also not a benchmark on what different markets actually require right I mean I used to spend a lot of time in Finland the Finns do it again very different the Nordics in general right to do it again very different and so Johannesburg and whatnot so we just mainly looked at because of our recent work between the US and for example look at NASDAQ versus or S&P versus say say the Nikkei 225 and basically there is almost no comparison you cannot say look at all these are all the equities and this is how we're going to be treating them and this is a disclosure no matter where they are traded or whatever the primary trading trading market is it will not work and we know by now that that will not work because of the different requirements I guess that already are in existence in these different platforms and so therefore things that you're calling out as an opportunity for example for the S&P already were incorporated as a disclosure it was a risk that's really taken into account for example in the Nikkei market right there's already taken into account in Johannesburg and so those are going to be very interesting things to tease out to actually now starting to look at these correlations between stock markets which sorry Daniel but that makes even the ESG more confusing because now now you have to start worrying about where you're trading oh and with that we're at time and so I am sorry the last question just doesn't get asked oh so painful so I'm painful um I hear you whoops sorry um I have a fast mute because I have a little kid so thanks for joining us today if you missed any of our previous talks then you can view those on our website and if you didn't get a chance to ask professor Adrian's a question I'm putting his email address right now in the chat and you are welcome to email him directly absolutely I'm happy to happy to respond and engage can we all just have a moment to to acknowledge professor Adrian's thank you thanks again hopefully next time live yes we can all hope so please come back next month where our topic will again center on fintech and financial inclusion with professor terry freedline from the school of social work thanks everybody awesome thank you thanks christy


So, what is design thinking? I get asked that question all the time, because everybody has different points of view. So, here's my point of view. Design thinking is really critical problem-solving skills. It's solving a problem. It's using a methodology that can change at any moment, but it follows a pathway to get to some sort of conclusion. Now, the conclusion doesn't mean that it's right, but it's a pathway forward. So, design thinking is really just this methodology that's been crafted, where you're learning about insights, you're understanding who the audience is, you're gaining those insights, you're ideating off of those insights, you're testing that off of those insights, you're coming up with the prototype, and you may be deploying it if you find out it's successful. It may not be, and you've got to go back to the drawing board and start again. The other thing about design thinking that's really important, there may not be an answer. It doesn't necessarily mean it's going to lead to the solution. And I think that's something that's really hard. If you're going to embark on this whole concept of design thinking, you better be willing to say, I may not come up with a solution. And that to me is something that I think people lose. It's like they think it's one plus one equals two, and two plus two equals four, four plus four equals eight, and it isn't that at all. This is a very fluid process that will take different turns depending on the answers that you get.


Welcome back to Las Vegas. It's theCUBE live at AWS re-invent 2021. Lisa Martin here with Dave Vellante. We have two live sets, continuous CUBE coverage. That's what we mean by that. Two remote sets, over 100 guests on the program at re-invent 2021. Lots of content. We are running one of the largest hybrid tech events with AWS and its enormous ecosystem of partners. Talking about the next decade of cloud innovation. Dave and I are pleased to welcome John Purcell, the Chief Product Officer of Do-It International to the program. John, how's it going? It's going well. It's nice to meet you both. Thanks for having me. Likewise, nice to be here. So talk to us about Do-It. Who are you guys? What do you do? And then we'll talk about your relationship with AWS. Surely, so yeah. So we're a global technology company and our mission is pretty simple. Companies are embracing the public cloud at an incredible rate as we all know why we're here. And we simply set out to help them do that well. Help them be successful, drive the objectives that they've got in terms of why they originally adopted the cloud in the first place. We have a pretty unique value proposition I would say. We do three things with companies like this. First is we resell you the public cloud so you will build through us. And as a follow up to that, we do three things. We provide an intelligent technology portfolio that's available to you to use. We provide an advanced set of advisory and consulting services available to you. And we provide 24 by seven unlimited technical support both for our technology and for your cloud. And all of that is available to you at no additional cost as a client to do it. So it's a pretty unique value proposition. Got it, okay. And so tell me about some of the things that you've noticed in the last 22 months with the pandemic. We've seen this massive acceleration of digital transformation, cloud adoption, obviously every company now becoming a data company or if they're not, they're not going to be around much longer. Have you seen any industries in particular that have really come to do it? So guys, help us out. We've got to move fast. Sure. So there are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions depends on what count you believe or when you read it. But these are all companies who are adopting the cloud. They've bought into the promise of the cloud. And this has been going on now for a few years, perhaps a decade. Certainly AWS has been doing this for 15 years now. And we simply saw certainly during the pandemic an acceleration of that. But we particularly focus on companies who are already in the cloud. They're poised for growth. They're technology savvy in many cases in almost all cases. And these are specifically who we target. They don't need remedial sort of level assistance. They're technical experts, so to speak. And so we can sort of provide an additional level of help for their most complex, but still essential problems. And so they're the tier of companies we mostly focus on. And you said earlier, you do the billing. You have basically white labeling the cloud. That is our primary business, Dave. Yes, we will resell you. So you consume all of the same services, all of the same technology that you can take benefit from in the public cloud. You simply transact through do it. Okay, so I'm trying to square the circle between you have highly technical people that obviously can figure out cloud pricing on their own, but yet at the same time, you're that layer between, which simplifies things. Is that because the highly complex teams or technical teams want to spend time doing other stuff? That's primary, I think that's a good insight, Dave. I think a lot of companies, whether you're born in the cloud or migrating to the cloud, but you're doing it for a set of reasons that I think are well established at this point. It's agility, it's acceleration, it's competitive resistance. I need to be able to take advantage of the newest and most emerging technologies. But something happens on your way to the cloud. There's a set of management responsibilities that in many cases have been around as long as IT has been around, but don't disappear just because you've chosen to build your business in the cloud. And so when companies look to do it, what we can provide for them is a level of assistance to alleviate some of that management burden. And again, these are not companies who are looking at very basic, simple entry level questions, like which cloud should I choose? These are companies who in many cases have chosen a cloud, they're operating, they've built infrastructure, they have a cloud estate, and they're poised for that growth, right? So in many cases, it's am I architected for scale? Am I secure across the entire surface area? Am I chosen the right technologies for the next phase of the business evolution? So you're an accelerant. We're an accelerant. And large, medium, small, yes, all of the above? All of the above, Dave, I would say. If you're a company that's in the cloud, you are technically savvy and you're poised and ready for growth, we're interested to talk to you. We can provide support. I want to get your point of view on something, John. So initially the cloud, a lot of small, when Amazon turned the cloud into an API, it allowed small companies to have data center infrastructure, the same as big companies compete. And then the big companies caught on and they had this undergoing this massive IT transformation. I don't know if you saw the Goldman deal this morning. Goldman Sachs is basically creating a Uber super cloud on top of AWS, allowing their hedge funds access to their data, their tooling, essentially their SaaS that they've built. So the big guys are like, they almost have an advantage now. That's a highly technical thing to do. And I wonder if the little guys in this next transformation to get left out, can you help, is that something you do? What do you think about that sort of balance of power, if you will, between small and big? Well, I think it's really about what's your success objective there. I mean, Goldman Sachs is a global banking, global financial services company. They have a different set of expectations to satisfy their global demand, their clients, their companies, their portfolios. The need is simply one of scale, I would say. What are the real value propositions that you're trying to provide to your customer base? And whether you're a 10 person startup, with a modest level of infrastructure and spend in the cloud or your Goldman Sachs, interestingly, a lot of the problems are consistent and similar between the two, right? The cloud is dynamic. By its very nature, it's an elastic thing, right? It scales up, it scales down, it ebbs and it flows. So the dynamic and constant or continuous rate of change poses similar sets of problems for Goldman, just as it would for any of the startups you see. And the problem is getting it right? Getting it right, maintaining an awareness of what's going on, making sure that you're spending the right amount of money on the right services, you're what we call rate optimized, and making sure that you're secure, that you have visibility into what's changing the beauty of the cloud, the promise of the cloud, is that we can have compute memory and storage whenever we want it, drop of a hat. The flip side of that is anyone can get it whenever they want within your organization. And so maintaining some sort of control and governance over that process is the same for large and small. So then where are you having customer conversations? You talked about the kind of maturation level of the customers that you are working with, large and small, but where are your conversations? Are they within the IT stack? Are they higher level? Knowing that you've got organizations that already obviously understand the value of the cloud, but need to optimize it, need to grow new to scale. Has that conversation elevated, especially in the last 22 months? I think traditionally movements to the cloud and the kinds of problems we end up focusing on are very engineering dev ops who cares about scale, who cares about sort of choosing the right technology problem, solving the right technology problems. But increasingly when you fuse technology and the scale of technology with how do you pay for it? How do you budget for it? How do you govern it? How do you make sure that the rollout into the cloud is done proportional to your business expectations, indexed to things like business growth? That's where you see that overlap between, let's say, finance and engineering and creating a common language for both of those constituents to use when we talk about we need to budget for our spend. That's really difficult to do in the cloud. It's not as simple as just look up a price sheet and away we go. It's so dynamic, it creates a really interesting problem and a very hard problem. Now you guys have done a nine figure raise, so obviously you're more than a consultancy. You've got a tech stack of your own. Maybe you could talk about your portfolio. Sure, so we are a technology company and we invest in a couple of key, I would say three key areas in order to help solve the problems we're talking about. Number one is what we call analytics that matter. One of the hardest things to keep track of because of the dynamic nature of cloud infrastructure is what's coming and going and what is it costing? What is the true cost to the business and how do we put some governance around that in the form of budgets and so forth. But making sense of that from one company to the next, they're very inconsistent. Your business looks different to my business, looks different to the next person's business. So creating a set of insights that are relevant specifically to your business is a tricky proposition. So that's why we call it analytics that matter to you. So that's a big, big area of investment in the tech portfolio. The second area we invest in is what we call simply cost savings. So once you know what your spend base looks like, once you know what's going where, the trick then is to find ways to optimize that. It's not always about reducing cost. This is sort of a common, you hear this a lot in the industry. How do I reduce my cost? It's about optimizing it to the right level so that increasing costs might be fine if your business is growing. So our goal is to provide smart software that helps you find the right rate for your unit of consumption and then use software to automatically apply that. And then the third area, if I could just finish on that note, is what we call proactive governance. And that's simply, most basic form of financial governance is a budget. How can we set a budget and then look for situations where we might be in jeopardy of breaching that or exceeding what we've set as our governance control. So where in those three areas do you use machine intelligence? All three? I mean, maybe you could talk about how you're injecting AI into your portfolio. Yeah, that's great. So we use it in as many places as we think is relevant. So certainly when you're looking at large data sets, for example, billing and usage data, leveraging advanced algorithms like sort of various machine learning techniques to help you look for patterns, to help you derive, look at sort of project forward-looking expectations based on what you've seen up to date is a really interesting machine learning use case. And so when we're looking at forecasts, this is your spend month to date. This is where we expect you'll finish the month. Very common sort of intuitive use case. When you set a budget, we can predict for you pretty accurately when you will hit that limit or the thresholds on the way to that limit. And then one of the final ways we leverage machine learning today is what we call anomaly detection. So we talked about it, a lot of things changing, not always intentional, not always for the betterment of the business. So if something happens in your cloud estate that was, for example, a mistake or a misconfiguration and it creates a spike in usage or it creates what we might say as anomaly, unexpected behavior, we can catch that, we can look at the patterns, catch that, and then take action. So those are sort of the three most common areas we use machine learning today. Can you give us an example of a customer that you think that you're working with, that really articulates the value of what do it is enabling and what you're delivering customers? Well, it's like picking your favorite child, right? We work with over 1,500 customers today around the world of various sizes as we discussed earlier. The range of challenges and problems they bring to us is wide and varied and that's one of the big challenges that we're working hard to try to maintain pace, to keep pace with, right? So we're working very hard. You can imagine when a company is choosing a technology partner, like do it, you've got to earn that trust. You've got to earn their trust because you're taking action sometimes on their behalf using software, right? So we've got to work hard to earn it. We've got to demonstrate it and then we've got to keep it, right? So especially in the world of SaaS and cloud, you're just always re-earning and re-upping that trust. So I'd rather not pick a favorite customer that they're all favorites of mine. I should ask early on, what is cloud to you? Is it purely public cloud or is it hybrid? It's public cloud primary, that's where we focus. So if you're a growing company, poised for growth, using one or more public clouds, that's our sweet spot. And what's your roadmap look like? Give us a little perspective on where you're headed. Yeah, so our roadmap, so we have, I would say, a pretty rich and rather daunting, I would say, strategy that we need to execute over the next 12 to 18 months and it's driven primarily, Dave, by the problems that we talked about that our customers bring to us, right? That's the beauty of working in a company that's both a technology, a deep technology company and an advisory, sort of has it a strong advisory and consultancy angle, right? The problems we hear about are real operational, real world problems. They're not sort of, here's a problem we think you should have and you don't know you have and here's a solution to that you may not have known existed. These are problems mostly reacting to things we deal with on a daily basis, right? So whether it's analytics and insights, as we talked about, whether it's cost savings and making sure that we can apply rate optimization across compute, memory storage, network, you name it, anywhere that you can derive, for example, discounts or savings in the cloud, we need to be able to automatically apply those and then finally the proactive governance is a big, big area of focus for us over the course of 22 and so we'll continue to sort of invest broadly and deeply across each of those areas. Last question for you as we wrap up here, one of the things that we talk about with AWS all the time is they're, hey, we work backwards from the customer for that sort of customer obsession. It sounds like you were talking about from an advisory perspective that the customers that do it works with are really influential on that roadmap that you just talked about and the direction that you guys are taking the company. I would say one of the things that you'll find as when you talk to product people and companies and you probably know yourself is that you always want to have more customer interaction. You can never have enough because there's nothing worse than investing, building, shipping, and it's sort of, it's not used, right? So for us, I'm delighted, and this is one of the first companies I've worked for that has a really rich and dynamic and very deeply qualified set of customer interaction and feedback. So it's, you know, my colleagues will appreciate when I say it's rather easy to sort of pick the things that we know we're going to be truly valuable and truly used. So it is, you know, it was mentioned, Adam mentioned it in the AWS keynote yesterday about from customer backwards. We're very much the same and we have a strong set of customers that are vocal and we're delighted to have them. Excellent, John, thank you so much for joining Dave and me on the program, talking about what you guys are doing and how you're helping businesses really accelerate in every industry. We appreciate your insights in your time. It's a pleasure to meet you both, thank you. Likewise, for Dave Vellante, I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching theCUBE at AWS Reinvent, theCUBE, the global leader in live tech coverage.


What is going on guys, welcome back to the channel Critical Overlord here. This is going to be a review for the 2016 horror film, the autopsy of Jane Doe. The autopsy of Jane Doe was released in 2016, but it didn't come out in, it didn't get like any official releases, I don't think until like mid 2017, early 2017. The film is directed by Andre Overdahl and it stars Owen Kelly, Emile Hirsch and Brian Cox. Those are our three central characters, those are only three that I'm going to very mention of because there are three central characters. The movie revolves around those three actors for the majority of the film. This film follows a father and son, a group of a pair of father and son coroners in a local small town. They investigate the death of a girl who was found at the scene of a crime where it appears that other people around her were also murdered. Her, she's not able to be identified so she's classified as a Jane Doe and when the father, when the pair of coroners start investigating her or start performing the autopsy on the body, they start to discover a lot of bizarre details surrounding this Jane Doe. When I first saw this film, I was intrigued at how genuine these scares were because some of the scares in this film, they don't come from jump scares, they're coming from the actual fear of you're right along with this father and this, this pair of father and sons, you're right along with them, you're trying to figure out, well what the hell is going on with this Jane Doe, what is, what is going on with her, why? And as soon as she, as soon as she shows up there on the scene and they start doing the autopsy, a lot of weird things start happening around these, these two corners. The radio that they have in the room starts playing random songs and random noises. The weather starts to, starts to be affected by her presence. The lights start flickering, the corpses that are in the room already with them, they start moving around on their own. A lot of bizarre things start happening once they start performing the autopsy on this Jane Doe. And everyone in this film does an amazing job, everyone holds their own. While the characters are not fully fleshed out, everyone here gives an amazing performance. You genuinely care about these characters, well, I wouldn't say you want to see them necessarily succeed, but you become invested right along with them, you want them to at least finish this autopsy, you want to see them finish the autopsy, you want to find out as much about Jane Doe as they do. I like how that film, how the film kind of puts you in the same position that they are in. It's almost as if you guys are performing the autopsy right along with them and that's what I appreciate about this film, how it takes the audience and it puts them in the same boat with the characters, no one knows more. The characters don't know more than you and you don't know more than the characters. Of course, as you're watching the film, you may start to put clues and pieces together, but eventually you will come right back to the same spot that the characters are at and everyone is on the same page for the majority of this short film. This film is rather short, it's like around an hour and 28 minutes if I'm not mistaken. The cinematography in this film is very well done. Like I said, the acting in this film is amazing, everyone gives a solid performance. The soundtrack, there's a song in particular, I can't think of the name of it right now, but if you've seen this film, you know what I'm talking about, it plays at the end of the film. I think that was beautifully attached to this film and I think they played that song at all the right moments in the film to build up the tension and the suspense that was already established by the bizarre events that occur in the film. Every other scene in this film is rather disturbing because you don't know what is going on here. And then when you do start to find out what's going on, because you do find out in the end what is going on and where this person came from and also who Jane Doe is. That is where the film starts to fall apart. Again, it all goes back to a lot of what the downfall is with a lot of other horror films. When you start to expose too much about your villain or too much about the mystery of the film, that's when a lot of films start to decline in a big way because what this film does is it explains Jane Doe and it gives the audience information as to who this person could be. Nothing is concrete but there's enough clues hinted at it as the film goes on and as the father-son duo, they start pulling back things from the body. As the film is going on and as more clues become exposed, anyone who's familiar with certain real-world events, you may be able to figure out what's going on here right before the very end. I kind of did this. I had hunches of what was going on and then the film confirmed them at the very end when it was reiterated in front of me on screen once the father and son put two and two together as well. I did not really dig the backstory of Jane Doe but I do like how the plot twist was rather logical in a way. That's the only thing I liked about it. I don't think it was necessary to know what was going on with her. There clearly was something supernatural here going on and you find out what that is in the end. I don't think so what the problem is with that, while they revealed what was going on it wasn't as once they did that it was no longer as compelling because what was interesting and intimidating about the film was the lack of you not knowing what was going on and then once you know it kind of takes away from some of the scares that occur after the fact. That's just my opinion on it. I feel like this film would have benefited more if we never found out what was going on with Jane Doe. Like I said the film is rather short. It's an impressive short film. It's not a short film but you get what I'm saying. It's an only an hour and 30 minutes. It's a very impressive film for such a short runtime. Everyone does an amazing job. It's directed well. The cinematography is amazing. I love the colors. The coloring in this movie I think those are absolutely beautiful. I think the design of the morgue where the father and son are I think that's amazing. The outside imagery of the other set pieces that we have in this film I think those are all constructed very well. This movie is not a bad film. In my opinion it could have been a great film but at the end of the day it ended up being a solid enjoyable film that I would say is good. On a scale of 1 to 10 I would give the autopsy of Jane Doe a solid 6.5 out of 10. I love this movie. I recommend it to anyone who is a fan of the horror genre. If you haven't seen this movie go check it out. If you enjoyed my review give this video a thumbs up and if you haven't already subscribe turn on post notifications in the description of the video I will have links to all my social media accounts I'm on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram you can message me there to let me know what movies you would like me to review in the future. With all that in mind guys I will see you in the future for the next review.