Good morning everybody and welcome to the CCTV session here at the annual meeting in Davos. And the topic of this session is putting China's trillions to work. It will be a session focusing on where the Chinese money will be going. And speaking of the Chinese money going overseas, as a Chinese citizen, I would like to say that all of a sudden, when we travel around the world, we are widely perceived and seen as the rich guys. I was just in Brussels and my good friend, Mr. Chen Feng, the chairman of Hainan Airlines, Grand China Airlines was having a ceremony in Brussels. He's taking over two more hotels in Belgium. I went to a seafood restaurant and I was ripped off by the shop. I had to pay double the price. I asked people why, he said, because you're Chinese. But of course, we Chinese participants among ourselves talk about Chinese money going overseas, Chinese companies buying overseas companies all the time too. I was talking to some of the participants here. I was saying that when can we have one of the Chinese CEOs here in Davos taking over Belvedere so that we don't have to spend years wondering how to solve the mystery of getting a room at Belvedere. It is happening as we speak, but we're probably a little bit different than the Japanese in the 1980s because China, after all, is not a rich country. But which brings me the very first question to the panelists. And I would also like to introduce you, the panelists who have all been great and interviewees for CCTV's business channel. Rick Levin, brilliant economist, president of Yale University. Pascal Lamy, who is the WTO director general. And both Rick and Pascal have been visiting China for more than 10, 15 years. Henry Kissinger was talking about he has visited China for more than 50 times. I'm sure you will beat his record when you are his age. Zhang Zhao is a CEO of Honi Capital, China's largest private equity. He is also one of the executive directors of Lenovo Holdings, which Lenovo also bought IBM's PC business a few years ago. And of course, Bob Griffelt, CEO of president of NASDAQ, who was also in Beijing a lot. The first question is, I remember Pascal when you were in Beijing last time, that you were saying that if we go to the roots of many of the squabbles at the WTO between China and its trading partners, very often the question is whether the world still sees China as a developing country. What do you think? I think it's a big issue for the management of the international system and of the international economy. And my guess is that we will see in the years to come as China's investments abroad grow. And I have no doubt that this will happen. We will have the same sort of political turbulences as the ones we've had on trade for the last 10 years. Investment of China abroad is the next phase of China's internationalization. And this will bump into public perceptions problems in China and outside China. Outside China, because this will be seen as one more destabilization, rearrangement of respective balance of forces. And if you look at what happened on trade with this sort of perception totally unfounded in my view, because I look at the numbers, but politics are about passions and perceptions. If you look at what's happened on trade for the last 10 years, the notion that China was dumping the world with cheap goods that were flooding consumer markets everywhere, you've seen one-tenth of what you will see when China will start seriously investing abroad. So this is a political issue which needs to be dealt with. Otherwise, it's going to be one more mess in the system. Now, it's also an issue in China. Many people in this room who know depths of China are better than I do, but I've always been struck at how much what the government does with public money. And there are a few trillions of reserves percieved by the Chinese people as their money. There's also a lot of domestic political debate about that. If you look at the blogs in China, if the government invests money abroad and this money is not well used, big political backlash. So all in all, an area of tabulances which stem from the fact that, again, the world still wonders outside China, whether China is a poor country with many rich people or a rich country with many poor people. And depending on how you answer this question, the political consequences you draw out of that. And again, we will have investment-wise issues we've had with trade, or having with trade, which lies on erroneous public perceptions if this is not carefully dealt with. John, are we a poor country with a lot of rich people or a rich country with a lot of poor people? Well, I think China is definitely a developing country. It is lifting itself out of general poverty. That's the success in the last 30 years. Unfortunately, as Pascal correctly pointed out, perception is the reality. But let's review. It's just in the last 20 years. I remember when I was a child, just about all the Chinese living China and for the rest of their lives, they thought they would be in China. Didn't know anything about foreign. When Deng Xiaoping opened the door up, it was a big deal for anybody to be sent by any reason, government sent or they have relatives overseas, go overseas. To make sure that foreigners do not see China as a poor country, the government has sanctioned a rule that says, we will make you a nice set of suits so that you don't go outside and show that we're such a poor country. Face is everything. So, fast forward. Now, the government doesn't do that anymore. The foreigners see wealthy Chinese because these are the guys who have business to do overseas, or they have money to spend overseas. So, giving the rest of the world the impression that China, this is ordinary Chinese, or they're not, they're the minority and they're wealthy. So, I think China is a developing country in general are still poor in terms of average per capita, this and that. But it's a large country economically because China as a sovereignty could unite resources in a way where they look at the Olympic game, you know, how could a poor country do a game as luxury as that. But that has something to do with how the country is organized. But if you talk about every day, every body's living standard, China is still, I think it's not a very rich country. Now, with this, I would not say China is a poor country because China has a model which has demonstrated in the last 30 years that is it is developing very fast. So, with the way that it's developing itself, I think China will become gradually not only an economic large country but also fairly strong country. That's probably the next 30 years. Rick Yeo has probably more Chinese students and Chinese faculty and Chinese connections than any other Ivy League schools in the United States. And do you find yourself always in the position of bridging that gap between perception and reality on China? Yes, I think it's a battle. American public opinion is surprisingly and problematically somewhat hostile to China, to the perceived, you know, taking away of American jobs. The rhetoric in the political sphere, I think, creates, you know, some among Chinese who are living here, some, you know, deep concern and understandably. You know, the perceptions are, in my view, unfair, ungrounded. I mean, even if you change the terms of trade, even if the Chinese currency were tremendously upvalued, it would not have a major effect on the U.S. trade deficit. I mean, it's, we could buy things elsewhere, more likely than produce them at home. And as Pascal was just saying to me earlier, a lot of the import content of Chinese exports is very high, so the net effect of a revaluation would not have a huge effect on Chinese trade balance. Yeah, a lot of us saw the State of Union address by President Obama in which he mentioned China as a competitor, and he talked about how the U.S. need to get jobs back from countries like China. Was that mostly election campaign year rhetoric, or do you think it's, it is how most American decision makers actually think? I think it's more campaign rhetoric than, I think, there's a better understanding among policymakers, at least in the White House and State Department, Treasury Department, than that rhetoric would persist. However, in Congress, I'm not so sure that Congress is so enlightened. So this is a problem. And, you know, getting, one way to get jobs back is to be more open to Chinese direct investment, let Chinese investment create jobs in the United States, but there have been barriers erected there. The sypheus process, which reviews investments initially was intended to protect the United States only against, you know, potential threats to national security. But ever since the CNOT case, there's been a broadening of the sort of scope of sypheus to take up cases that are basically simply competitive threats. And then there's been retaliation on the Chinese side with the passage of the anti-monopoly law that explicitly gives the Chinese government the right to deny foreign investment on competitive grounds. So this is not an advance of the open trade and investment system that Pascal has championed for his whole life. It's a step backward and we should, those of us that try to carry the burden of persuasion towards an open world system, have a lot to overcome in the United States. Bob, do you have this perception versus reality issue with the CEOs and investors? I would say let me, if I could back up for a second. In terms of developing countries, you know, China is obviously both. When you go to the technology parks, this science technology parks, and I remember the Xinhua University Board, I go to their technology park every visit, it's remarkable, right? So there's no other place in the planet and certainly no developing country that has that kind of infrastructure in place. And what's interesting to me, 10 years ago, they're about having pride to catch up to what the world is doing. But if you go there for the last three years, the message you get from the technology parks is, we will innovate. If they're about innovation, they want original content, original technology coming out of China. And you're seeing that come to fruition in some of the mobile technologies, right, where China is actually developing something that doesn't exist in the rest of the world. In response to your direct question, I think in the U.S. today, based upon certain situations with other Chinese companies, you have a certain perception issue with a U.S. investor. But I think that's a minor factor relative to the major issue is that all companies have a somewhat difficult time in the public markets today. We live in a world of equity outflows, so the mutual fund managers can be quite selective, have to be quite selective about what they will invest in. And they're able to basically invest in things that they think are essentially hitting all their checkboxes or approaching perfection. And to the extent there's any defect in the story, whether it be a geography story, a business model story, then it's hard to get investor dollars today. And speaking of developing country or not, China is a country that sits upon a lot of cash. So we'll be talking about where the Chinese money will be going at this session. I would like to say there are probably three levels. At the top, at the state level, we do have 3.2 trillion, almost 4 trillion U.S. dollars of foreign reserves. And China has always been buying treasury bills from the U.S. China has been financing debt in Europe even pre-prices times. And at the corporate level, there are massive accumulation of corporate earnings.  And we had Lenovo's takeover of AppNPC business. Last year we have much typed GLEE's highly leveraged buyout of Volvo. It is happening. And also at the private level, we have a lot of rich, what you call high net worth individuals transferring their personal wealth overseas as well. Buying properties, buying land. That's also happening. So at all three different levels it's happening. But let's go to the first level. China's trillions of dollars of foreign reserves. Pascal, there has been a lot of media talk about what China will do or should do with the European debt crisis. But I assume it is mostly the media rhetoric. The decision makers in Europe wouldn't really be counting upon China to solve that crisis, would they? No, you're right. My own view, and I'm not anymore a European insider, as you know, is that this is a media fluff-fluff. I don't believe one second that there would be a negotiation between the Chinese government and the European, quote, unquote, sort of government saying we will buy your debt if you do this or if you do that. They don't even do that with the US. They buy the US debt without any condition. So I don't believe that. But what remains true and what has been said so far goes in the direction is that the flow of Chinese money to the rest of the world will increase, whether it's private money, whether it's public money, whether it's semi-public money. This will happen with the sort of political tabula and says it will create. And there is, so I anticipate this problem. In my view, it's going to come and it's still time to try and frame it in such a way that it does not degenerate the way it has in some way degenerated on trade. And one of the sort of avenues I would suggest, what's the root of the problem in non-Chinese public opinions? It's that there's a Chinese official behind each every Chinese business person. That's the perception that China is grabbing resources. That's what they're trying to do with a sort of new colonial something. That thereafter, technology, stealing, transfer and all these extremely negative views, which overall translate into this is a country that doesn't play by the rules. Thanks God, on trade, we can deal with that because we have rules. And it's quite easy to determine whether or not a country plays by the rules where there are rules. And we have rules. Now, on investment, the problem is that playing by the rules means nothing because there are no rules. There's nothing like an international system that would basically say that's the common standard for rights and obligations for an investor vis-à-vis the country, vis-à-vis the people that are employed vis-à-vis the profit you're making vis-à-vis the tax system vis-à-vis the way you can repatriate your profits. There's nothing like this. And again, I believe that's an aggravating factor. As long as we don't have that, this next stage, which again I'm convinced will happen, will be more difficult to manage. And I think it's regrettable. We'll go back to some of the points that you mentioned. But John, going back to the trillions of foreign reserves, there are reasons why China sits upon such a huge amount of cash. Some say it has to do with decades-old methodology of foreign reserve management and investment philosophy. What do you think, what do you think China should do with this amount of money? Well, being a professional investor, my view about the Chinese overseas so-called investment experience is like this. Before just a couple of years ago, Chinese really were not very focused on investing overseas, including SAFE, the foreign reserve. They were barely keeping that increasingly large pound of money. They didn't know what to do with it. And the fear is that if you leave it there, the value is going to decrease. That's like a crime. So what do you do? So they basically say, well, look at what everybody else is doing, buying US Treasury. Okay, so that's a way of maintaining at least the value of that result of trade surplus. When they began to invest, I'm still talking about the 3.2 trillion US dollar foreign reserve, they actually experimented with hiring international fund managers to try to place it down into the system. Today, very much they're still doing so. They're not an active investor with the purpose of grabbing resources or anything. They're simply saying, let's make sure this hard-earned money doesn't depreciate as all these complicated situation are rising. Now, on the other hand, there have been fairly active attempts by both foreign funds like CIC, China Investment Corporation, which is newly formed, and most importantly, Chinese companies to invest overseas in the last few years. We actually are very active in facilitating some of the Chinese companies in their global expansion. Now, unfortunately, the perception that Pascal just illustrated is true. And I would say quite of those are stereotyping because you have bad Chinese companies, the guys who systematically fraud. But vast majority of Chinese companies are trying to follow the rule as they understand it. But it's just a key point to prove China is still a developing country. Many Chinese companies are learning the rules as they're trying to follow it. China doesn't have a hundred year of corporate governance history, where they have all these past failure and success to follow. They're just, you know, learning as they are moving along quickly. Many of the Chinese that foreigners are saying today are for the first time coming out, trying to do business with foreigners with cultural differences, the understanding of law and the rule. So again, China is just developing very quickly. And I invest in many Chinese companies, including some of the companies we were discussing, so how the Chinese concept companies. The ones that intentionally wanted to commit fraud are very, very few and far in between. But unfortunately, there are quite large percentage of Chinese companies with all the efforts, they still don't produce the best report or balance sheets as in foreign standard rule. They're just learning that rule. China is improving the rule as we speak. So I think it will take some time for their own good to see the rules gets understood and established and that somehow could started to match with the rest of the world. Rick, if you were in charge of China's foreign reserves management, what would you do? That's a that'd be fun. So obviously, one way to dispose of China's reserves or to utilize them efficiently would be to invest abroad and increase direct investment. And that would have an effect of at least in a short term of redressing global imbalances, although it wouldn't solve the problem in the long run because in the long run, they're going to make good investments. There's going to be money flowing back to China. And you still have the fundamental imbalance in the in the world economy, which is China saves too much and America saves too little. And that's what drives China's persistent trade surplus. And so the question is, is there a way to use these reserves that in some at least some portion of them to to actually eliminate the source of this accumulation? And and you know, one idea would be to use the reserves and a continuing flow of trade surplus to finance a better social security system in China to to give private, you know, individual individuals less need to save for their own retirement. China is going to have one third of its population in in retirement in in 2050, given the years of one child policy. And that means a pay as you go system of financing retirement is, you know, is fundamentally going to be unsound. So it's either individual savings, they're going to finance their own retirement, or it's a funded or partially funded social security system. So now the amount of Chinese reserves is nowhere near enough to fund a social security system. But right now, you know, only about half of the Chinese workforce is covered under the nascent social security scheme that's been developed just in the last few years. And and the level of support for those people is still relatively low. So this would help it would create a boost and it and it might have the effect of taking a you know, every trillion dollars you would put into a funding social security system might drive up the consumption rate by a few percentage points. And that would help to redress global imbalances. Bob, you have a point that on this. Sure. Well, the first thing I would say what's interesting is we define China as a developing country. And we're putting forth the proposition that the developing country should bail out the developed Europe. So I think that's a little ironic. And I would support Pascal's echo. I think you called it fluff fluff, the media speculation that there's going to be a coordinated effort on that. So I don't see any legitimacy to that at all. And there also is a quantum issue in that when you look at the debt of Italy alone, it's $1.9 trillion. So is, you know, larger the reserve is in China, it's not there. You know, can't solve the problems even if they wanted to. And to me, what's important to look at is, you know, the run rate where you saw the surplus went down 26 billion, I think to $155 billion year on year. So obviously that represents some change in the Chinese economy, which will ripple through in terms of what their policies are about. You know, with respect to Chinese making investments, again, it's a quantum issue in that CIC has about what 350 billion under management. So, you know, the scale of the Western world problems, you know, dwarf the dollars we're talking about. And the US is, you know, spending what $1.3 trillion more than we're taking in right now. So clearly the West has to, you know, resolve its own issue to the extent that China in its own self interest, once invest in Western economies, you know, that they should obviously do that. And certainly we would suggest that they can invest in nationalistic companies would be a good thing from there. Speaking of Italy, I was interviewing one of the big time CEOs in Italy. And we were talking that the Chinese tourists, Chinese outbound tourists spend a total of 50 billion US dollars outside of China, overseas shopping. Imagine if you lure all of China's tourists over to Italy for five consecutive years, their debt problem will be solved. So now I would like to open the floor to some of the participants here. Steve, Steve, you are now a professor at Yale University teaching a very popular course on China. Yeah, I work for Rick's. The premise of this session is how to put the trillions to work. And the panelists have identified the key tension in resolving that, which is a developing economy with an enormous surplus of saving. It's certainly very important to think about putting that money to work in investing in overseas companies and technologies that will deliver return. But the basic objective of China is to continue the path of economic development. And Rick Levin has addressed one aspect of that, the safety net. There's a number of other aspects of the development model that also need to be addressed, building out job creating services companies, fostering ongoing rural urban migration in central and western China. In thinking about putting money to work overseas, I'd be interested in the panelists' broader view about putting the money to work internally in driving what is a critically important transition in the Chinese economy from the export and investment led model to more of a consumer led model that really takes development up to the next level. Thank you. Mr. Chen Feng, the chairman of Grand China Airlines Holdings. Actually, all of us export for the people. I'm working for the industry. It's very hard to ask to talk as a right opinion. But for our opinion, we are every year to buy a lot of aircraft. We are Boeing and Airbus. Anytime I come to the United States, go to European, people will come to me. And the reason is I spend a lot of money. Every year I spend this minimum 500 million, just dollar. So that's why it's, yes. I think we are continuing to buy high technology requirement to very good transportation facilities. So that's the one way to spend money. You were saying, right? You were saying something? To Steve? In response to Steve? Well, Steve, I fundamentally agree with Steve. And I think we were, I think both suggested the same thing, that some fraction of these trillions could be used domestically to address the problems in China. Now, of course, if you spend the money domestically, that could have inflationary effects. And that's an issue. But whereas I was suggesting funding and social security, which would not have at least immediately the same kind of inflationary macroeconomic effect. But there are, I mean, maybe other panelists have some sense of that. It's not automatic you need to use these funds for direct foreign investment. I wanted to add to Steve's point, I is perfectly right. That's actually what's going on in China. China, so far, are very focused on domestic development. Even the so-called foreign investments increase are all, if you analyze them, they're all for internal development. Very, very defensive play. Look at what's going on in the last few years. It's been widely reported that Chinese companies, especially state-owned companies, are grabbing resources all over the world. Why? Well, China needed development and there's all kind of projection done mostly by Western economists as China needs everything that it doesn't have. So, and these companies like Steel Mill or oil companies, they're responsible for making sure to support the ever-growing internal consumption. What do they do? They go and try to secure resources. And none of this is to try to do what I think it's outwards attacking type of strategic play. It's really just to make sure they have a five-year, 10-year plan that is fully supported by raw material. Now, there have been more Chinese companies, I think mostly enterprises that are state-owned and non-state-owned, buying technology's brand. Again, the thesis that typically they have is to so that they could take advantage of the technology in the brand for domestic needs. We bought an Italian company called Chiva and they have some of the best technology in making these carbon fiber material long boom so they can reach high. But 90% of concrete machine market is in China. And before this company was acquired, there was very little penetration they could amass, you know, into Chinese market. Now they are owned by a Chinese leader and all of a sudden their sales started to increase by a few folds and technology to get utilized. But again, none of this is for going to the world and try to occupy every corner. It's all for internal. And that's the first stage. But I think, you know, I'm seeing a turning point where more and more Chinese are interested in becoming so-called multinational companies. Why? Because these companies are looking at examples. They're looking at Coca-Cola. They're looking at GM. All these US-based multinational companies are having their great success today because they have penetrated Chinese market. Now they're thinking maybe their view of becoming a bigger and better company is to become a company that can cover international markets. So they're learning to do that now, but hasn't started yet. But John, I'll ask you about there are a lot of successful examples of Chinese companies investing overseas, taking over foreign brands and companies. But there are a lot of failures as well. And sometimes a failure, if you're talking about the state on enterprise, it has to do with ideological clashes. Some say if it is the state on the company of China, they have unlimited source of capital. And that's against market economy principles. But sometimes maybe together with the amount of money Chinese people are perceived to have and Chinese companies are perceived to have, there's some sort of fear against Chinese companies investing overseas. Sometimes it's not necessarily government to government to red tapes. It is rather this fear that the Chinese money has generated around the world. Have you ever had a case that failed? Absolutely. Because of that. Yeah, I tend to agree with Rick's early point about with the world's problem, government sometimes tend to politicize a normal trade issue. Let's try to prevent that. But again, for Chinese company to come abroad acquiring companies, I don't think the government regulation or political rhetoric would be the hindrance. The critical thing is just like any two companies want to emerge. There needs to be consideration about strategic Fed, resources match and more importantly culture or harmony. And I've run into a situation this is three or four years ago where a Chinese company where we are investors are interested in acquiring a German company. And when the two management team met and the German management team was just not comfortable with being owned by that Chinese group. And they literally choose to sell the company to a French ownership group at a lower price. That really is a good example to show that there's quite a bit goes into cultural Fed. Money is not everything. In other words, because you have money doesn't mean you're strong. Right. Or you're not emerging. You're trusted. There's a fundamental lack of trust in Chinese. I actually happen to believe the German company made the absolute right decision. You know, if if they didn't believe that they can work with the new owner well, think about the disaster that you could have after the ownership. So I think this is the one thing we're advising all our Chinese companies who are interested in coming out and acquire companies to focus on these operating issues. And that's a learning process. But Chinese companies, particularly those listed on NASDAQ and NYC seem to have a little bit of a reputation issue or crisis, so to speak. Last year. How are things looking now? Let me again, answer the prior question. I get back to your direct question. One thought if you're running a Chinese company and your home market is growing by nine or 10 percent a year and you look across the world and you can buy into a market that's growing one or two percent a year. I know if one of my line managers came to me, I would say, you know, why don't you focus on the 10 percent grower as opposed to the one percent. So I think you have that natural rationality to the actions and then things like the CFIAS process. And I've been through that myself as we took foreign direct investment is certainly a friction in wanting to do these type of things. And it was hard enough three years ago. So if you're saying it's harder now that that would scare away a number of people. With respect to your direct question, we had a couple of relatively high profile Chinese companies that were not following the rules of the road. And it's important to recognize that we in the Western world have had a long tradition of corporate misdeeds. So it's not a new concept. And it's not in the distant past that we can remember Parmalat in Europe or Enron in the U.S. So it's a natural consequence of actions. That being said, it's not our job to accept that as a state of being, but obviously to evolve to a higher place. And what we're doing in China quite aggressively is to promote the corporate governance standards that have been developed in the Western world. And what's interesting to me is there is a direct cultural difference between the reception we get in China than we have seen certainly in large parts of the U.S. When regulations came such as Sarbanes-Oxley in the U.S., it was met with really general derision by the corporate class in the U.S. Irrespective of some of the positive things of Sarbanes-Oxley ignoring all those positives and focusing on some legitimate negative things in particular Section 404. In China, they seem to have an insatiable appetite to learn good governance standards. The seminars, the classes we run, are fully subscribed. They're booked early. So I think it's a process of evolution. In the meantime, you obviously have to work through the current set of circumstances. And the one thing I will say is investors have a very short memory when they believe there's a good company that's coming to market. What about the other way around? How do you read into the possibility China is exploring right now, which is to establish an international voice in China to attract overseas companies seeking IPO in China? Yeah, that's been obviously under discussion for a number of years. And we're a strong supporter of China moving forward with that in the timeframe that's proper for them. And clearly, Western companies that have large operations in China have a large, not just production, but also consumption in China want to be a recognized entity. And I think the international bores when it does come will be quite popular. Once again, questions from the audience, questions, comments, and David? You need a microphone. We need a microphone. Thank you. Gentlemen, in the front row, thank you. So I think we're framing something quite incorrectly. You know, we say that China is grabbing resources around the world. That's actually not true at all. China is investing in the development of resources that otherwise wouldn't exist in the world. So China's financing billions of dollars of development in Brazil, of the pre-salt, oil that is thousands of meters below the sea. Without billions of dollars of investment, which China's funding, those resources wouldn't exist in the world. Similarly, the investments in Australia in mining or in natural gas development offshore. So I think we need to take a different look at actually how China is spending its money. It's not grabbing. It's actually investing to develop resources for the world. Secondly, I think that, you know, we shouldn't remark at just how much China is investing abroad. Actually, we should remark at how little.  And when we compare how much China is investing, given the size of its GDP, compared to Germany, compared to Japan, we should remark at how little it is. So the world needs to get ready for much more investment. Now, on the question of how China is balancing its investments abroad, clearly it needs to be thinking ahead to major challenges in the economy. One is inflation. And so expanding the productive capacity of the economy is a big one. Secondly is productivity. Because, you know, it's remarkable that in just five years, China's workforce is actually going to plateau. And so growth in the future in China has to come from a more productive workforce. So investment in upskilling and education in the private sector are critical. Lastly, I would note that one source of savings in China is these large, state-owned enterprises that have major surpluses. Frankly, if they can't find good reasons to invest that money, they need to return it to the shareholders, the people of China, and let them decide how to spend it. Is there anyone who seriously disagrees with David Michael or PCG? A question, a comment? Hello. You were talking about how China can invest in Europe and the United States. I come from Mexico. What about the developing world which is growing quite more than Europe and the United States? What's the role of China's investment in Latin America, for example, which is growing more than the US? And what do you expect if this trillions could go there and what are the chances that it happens? Thank you. Right, I'm going to take another question from this gentleman in the second role and have the panelists. JP Gwoni from EFG International. Maybe the panelists are too young to remember that 50 years ago we had the same phenomena, but it were the Americans who floated Europe with the strong dollar and bought anything they could. And we then had sort of the same feelings and fears. There were no rules there either how to invest. However, it was a very good thing. We have become a bit more Americanized perhaps, but that was a healthy thing. Now we have the Chinese doing the same thing. I hope and expect the Chinese will invest all over the world their money. It will be healthy in Europe and America for competition. And also in the third world, developing world for developing these territories or these economies. So I think perhaps we're going to become all a bit more Chinese. But it doesn't bother me either. As a matter of fact, I tell my grandchildren, learn Chinese, you'll be better equipped. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, so my opinion that I think the West over the world is right. But must be very careful. One thing is mutual complementary partner. Another thing I think must find the joint venture not buy. Yeah, for example, I think many years ago, Audi come to China. They didn't buy companies. The joint venture with Chang Chun Yiqi and they are very successful. Because they had to probably back then. Yeah. And the Korean brand Hyundai, the joint venture with Beijing Motor Company. Yeah, so and very successful. Yeah, so I think before marriage should date. Yeah, and to know to understand. So I hope that more and more Chinese company can open office of the world. Not only the Europe and the United States but also many, many developing countries. The important cities have office to understand the culture, and I think the human results in future must be very, very important. So I think be careful and then joint venture like our marriage. You know, our marriage is joint venture 50%-50%. Please. And I would like the panelists to address some of the questions made by the... Yeah, I just wanted to respond to the friend from Mexico's question. As a matter of fact, if you look back as Chinese companies are starting to invest overseas, more are going to developing country. Brazil, Mexico, Africa. The reason is exactly what this gentleman said because Chinese companies are very focused on growth for their own sake. And where they find going to developing country they can duplicate what they have done successfully in China starting from everything in perfect to quickly developing their business because market is growing. So there's that preference. I think that preference will continue because after all, and we're even advising our companies, go invest. Don't buy cheap properties. Go buy future growth and cash flow. So I think developing country all over the world still represents the most attractive opportunity for Chinese companies to invest and earn a better return than two to three percent. Now, that said, I think more and more Chinese companies are becoming a little bit more sophisticated in looking at the good things that they could buy or join venture with in developed country like technology or brand. Again, their focus there is to bring these things back to China to satisfy the fast growing domestic consumption requirement. Think about all these luxury bags, handbags ladies use that are bought everywhere around the globe but to be brought back to China for internal consumption. So I think those things are the main theme for the next few years and that's also a very good learning platform for many of the Chinese companies. Pascal? I 100% agree with this thought of get ready for more Chinese investment abroad. This will happen. My point is that in order for this to result in a sort of win-win game, a number of public perception issues have to be addressed by us all including by the way on the Chinese side. If you watch CCTV what you see from China we'll definitely convince any viewer that China is a highly developed country. So the message which China sends to non-Chinese populations is that, you know, it's sort of country with rockets, universal expose, Olympic games, high-speed trains. And I'm insisting on this because I live in that on the trade side every day. So it will happen but for it to happen we need to frame this in some way. Again, not that China hasn't invested abroad in recent times. They just have invented in treasury bonds and they will invest differently. Second, what's behind this Chinese leadership motto, you know, go abroad, invest abroad, which is part of the official policy of the CPC? I very much agree with you that in this there is a lot of willingness to learn, willingness to train. Chinese leadership has the view that Chinese business bankers are not yet experienced enough and that they need sort of learning by doing. For me, it's a sort of repetition of what Deng Xiaoping did in the 80s when he sent, you know, party official hopefuls by thousands to the West so that they learn. So this is the way I would personally interpret this sort of drive. It's something which is strategically motivated by importing experience, know how. And again, I see this as something very positive. Pascal mentioned there are a lot of cases, particularly in media in which China is being accused as the new colonialist. And that to me is a bit awkward because by saying, by suggesting colonialism, you're talking about Chinese companies going overseas, particularly in African and Latin American countries, trying to influence local politics. But it seems to me that the reality is the opposite. They they tend to focus too much on business self so that sometimes when there's a regime change or change of government, Chinese companies will be rendered rendered helpless in those situations. So, John, do you think when China invest overseas, particularly in certain parts of the world, they need to be more careful about the environment? They need to worry about other things than just the investment targets itself? Well, absolutely. First of all, I wanted to say in general Chinese are always historically good neighbors. And even now with all the resources that they have portrayed they have, the focus is still domestic improvements. And domestic improvements is a task that is not only require a lot of fun, but also require a lot of experience, which why learning is important. Now, when they expand, Chinese entrepreneurs, I remember most of these, it doesn't matter if they're a manager that managing state-owned companies or entrepreneurs that created their own little empire. Their experience is all gained mostly in China. While they have no ambition to expand, they try to use that experience to learn how to do it overseas. And that's why you see sometimes things that get misunderstood.  And if they attempt to do that in a foreign country like Iceland, you can imagine how this gets misconstrued. And a media, of course, will have a few days to work on that. That's learning. There's many, many traps, but most of these are not your intended. They're actually, you know, sort of just very innocent attempt to expand their businesses. With that said, I think the learning curve is going to be very long. Many, many Chinese companies will experience some kind of failure and correction along the way. I'm just responding to some of the comments from the audience. So, we heard that the Chinese companies will be making overseas investments, and that's a good thing. Parallel is back to the U.S. in post-WW2. We also hear that if there's not an adequate return, it is the people's money and should be put back into the economy. So, I think Chinese facing a fundamental capital allocation question, you know, which is a happy problem to have. And where the parallel breaks down is a developing country. And for them to be investing overseas, that return has to be quite high to really overcome both the financial and the social hurdle of the returns from investing in the country itself. So, certainly when you go beyond the tier one or two cities, you see that China has a lot of room for growth. There's a lot of, you know, per capita income is quite low. And there has to be a large claim on some of those reserves being invested domestically to move the domestic environment higher. And so, you know, you're going to have that fundamental tension in the years to come. And the balance of it is, you know, obviously uncertain between foreign and domestic. Rick, I remember Bob's comment reminded me of something happened in the Yale context a couple of years ago. There was a Yale Chinese graduate from Yale who became a very successful private equity manager in China who made a lot of money and he donated eight million dollars to Yale as a tradition of Yale University. But this incident generated a lot of criticism in Chinese media, particularly on the internet, suggesting exactly what Bob had mentioned, that China is a developing country of so many. This gentleman, why didn't the gentleman give that amount of money to build schools to children who don't have access to clean water or good education? What do you think should be the narrative for Chinese investment domestically?  And this portion of the money he gave to Yale is supporting an exchange program between Renmin University and Yale. So he's very focused on supporting his own country as well. But it reflects a mindset in China, which is that the Chinese have an obligation to pay attention to their own domestic problems and prove the wealthy Chinese have some social responsibility to give back to their society of an attitude that's not unlike the attitude we have in the West, particularly in the United States, which has thrived so much on philanthropy. I agree with Bob, China has many pressing domestic problems unequal development, East and West, rising disparities of income, which is, of course, a consequence of any industrialization process as you move people from a subsistence level on agricultural based production to an urbanized workforce, there's always a worsening of the genie coefficient before it improves again. This is a pattern repeated over and over again in the development process, but it's clear that there's a lot of concern about China's domestic problems and environmental problems as well as these economic disparities. And the Chinese government's acutely sensitive to these and if you read the current five year plan, I mean, there's a tremendous focus on addressing these issues. I would like to open the floor again to the floor. This gentleman, and then this gentleman in the first row, thank you. Peter Holmes at Court of Australian Financial Review, talking about the narrative for China's investment outside China, the opposite of that last discussion, I would think from some of the things said today that the general population of countries like Australia would take them as very concerning and they would talk to their politicians about stopping investment. I would hear things, you've already said that the senators have told people they've lost their jobs because Chinese workers have taken their jobs or wages have an increase. We've heard, we might see 10 times the amount of dumping. We've heard it has to happen and we've heard that the citizens of the countries have to become more Chinese. A lot of people around the world are saying they don't want that and rationally or mostly irrationally are talking to their politicians and saying, what can you do about that? So I'd be interested to hear what the panelists think China can do about improving the narrative so it doesn't get swung because of the extremes. Maybe it has to do with media as well. China creates every year, according to Australian press, several or maybe 10 billionaires in Australia because of China's purchase of natural resources and those billionaires, I presume, will create employment and contribute to the local economy as well. But yeah, what do you think? Let's go. I think that's spot on. It's, if I had to summarize the discussion so far, I would say, big money in search of a narrative. And we'd better get the narrative right. Again, with. Patience right and then get the narrative right. That's the thing. Okay, getting this went right is the business of business. But as we all know, and it is this globalised planner, it's even more true. It's never been, they operate in a political environment with feelings, with passions, with perceptions. And if I take, oh again, take the experience of trade which is, we have the experience of how it has happened, how overall it's been great, a big win-win game and how public possession-wise in US, it's terrible. Now, won't we agree on these two things? Looking at numbers, it's been great. Looking at politics, it's been terrible. Now, let's draw from this experience and not repeat it on the investment side. Public perception issue is rising, I think rising to the level of a fairly important issue as China started to grow economically. To get future economic development down, not only for the sake of Chinese, but for the world. Because I thought this is the growth engine. We actually needed to figure out a way to manage the public perception better. The trend is very concerning. Gentlemen presented a perfect example, but even better example, if you look at the US presidential election where a candidate, while they're campaigning for the office, would have to automatically switch to anti-China and then only to be ready to switch the position gradually when they get in the office. That's a commonly known phenomena in China by Chinese public. But then there's very little that is done. I think China needed to do a lot. China has a long way to go because for centuries, the perception is as long as you have a one-party rule, your media would be controlled. So whatever you say would be only half true. They think about all the good things that is shown. Which is a different issue, but the rest of the world, I think there's a fundamental issue to either get ready to accept that 1.3 billion Chinese people. Let's put the government aside. These people have roughly the same dream, dreams as the rest of the world. They want to better their lives. So they were very poor and now they figured out a way to create wealth for themselves. They wanted to do more. And once they have that, they don't want to stash that cash away anymore. They want to spend. They want to come abroad. They wanted to entertain or... So I think this is coming up, but I think the challenge is that this is coming so quickly. So the rest of the world are needed to start to settle on this thing. Gee, this is good or bad. But it's happening. I think we can all do more to help to get this perception right. One way of doing that is I like that gentleman's historical review. The net result, assuming a piece of the world, is that people pursue the same kind of happiness and we need to all accept that. Steve Roach, do you think there's something missing in the narrative? I do, I think there's an 800-pound gorilla that wants to ask you a question. And John, I was really shocked to hear you say that the government buys treasuries just because it's fashionable. The government buys treasuries because of the currency policy and needs huge positions in dollar-based assets to manage the RMMB in the range that it thinks is reasonable for China's objectives. Wouldn't there be a more creative way to view the role of the RMMB to allow the RMMB to rise over a reasonable period of time to free up the government's voracious appetite for treasuries to put those funds to work at domestic development? I'd be very interested in hearing the panelists' views on the role of the currency in influencing how to put these trillions to work in fostering economic development for China in a way that would alleviate some of the tensions that have arisen over this currency debate. Let's keep that question, important question in mind and take another question from the gentleman in the back and then, don't hold it on you. Sure. I'll take two more questions from you. Thank you. This is Osman Ulaaga. I am a columnist for a Turkish newspaper. Now, China is a big power in word manufacturing, but its financial sector is relatively underdeveloped and it will be probably one of the items that it will have to tackle. So how would that affect its investment priorities? A question on China's underdeveloped financial sector. Another question from the gentleman in the second row. Hi, I'm a global shipper from China and I heard a lot of fear about China. Like China doesn't have a rule or they don't have innovations, they don't respect IP. Say they just copy everything else, they just grab resources. And I have to say that many of them are stereotype. So probably most of you don't know that more than 30% of the most popular apps on App Store or Android Market are developed by Chinese developers. We just don't have Steve Jobs. Yeah, that's true. So there are a lot of things happening in China. So for example, I am an entrepreneur running my own startup developing mobile apps on Android and iPhone. And we have about 20% of Android phones are with our products and about 40 million users worldwide. And I just talked to another global shipper on the opposite of me on yesterday's dinner and he's from Middle East. And he just realized that the phone that he's using is running my software. And we actually spend a lot in IP protection. We hire the number one IP firm in the States, Finnegan, to be our legal counsel. And also we find more than 20 patents, also like in the States or Europe. So I guess, because we have six global shippers from China here and we are all representing the future of China. I think that the stereotype of China may be true in the past or even for now, but it won't be true anymore in the near future. I don't think that it will take about 10 years, 20 years. I think it will happen much faster than you expected. Maybe three or five years because we are the future of China. Thank you, thank you for sharing. I think the best way the Chinese company to go all over the world should join venture with the local companies. That means the cultural program, many many programs can solve. So I want to know what's your opinion, Masters? So we have a whole range of different questions for the panelists. Wing Wing. I'll start, there are a lot of questions. Start with a couple. One, with respect to when you have 9% unemployment in the US and goods come in and say made in China, you will have a common reaction that you have to deal with. And that's certainly something that presidential candidates who are trying to strike a populist tone can utilize. And I think you really have to live through that. When you kind of go up the knowledge level in dealing with China at the business community, you have a broad consensus that we want to see free and liberalized trade between China and the rest of the world. And if I was to stereotype the business concern is about IP, is about currency manipulation. What was interesting to me is when you look at the RMB it's come up with 26% since 2006. So it's certainly moving in the right direction. And what's always interesting to me is when we have QE2, QE3 or Operation Twist, we don't call that currency manipulation, but from the outside it could be seen that way. On the IP question I highlighted in my earlier remarks when you look at the science parks you see tremendous innovation. And the viewpoint I think in the business community is as soon as China has IP, then they'll want to protect it. And then you don't need to have the some hand of God guiding it, but you'll have this welling up. And I'm glad to hear that you're filing for patents and you want to protect what you develop. So I think that problem corrects itself over time. So in terms of just responding to the questions in general I agree that we do have a perception issue in the general population with China today. It's directly correlated to unemployment, business communities, understanding is more nuanced. And I think that we see that everything's on a positive trend line with respect to IP. I think the currency issue is, to my point of view, is correcting itself as we move along in time. China collectively will not do what it is told to do. It didn't do this when it was very poor. It will certainly not do this when it has more resources. That said, China is learning very quickly what's the right way to better its people's lives, to better its international standing. So I have a theory where for self-interests, many things that foreigners are very concerned about will improve as that young gentleman said, improve very, very fast. And intellectual property rights protection is one perfect example. 10 years ago I repeated myself many times to explain to foreigners who are very concerned about lack of intellectual property protection rights in China. I said people probably are not realizing intellectual properties are properties to own. Remember 10 years ago, China doesn't have a law protect private ownership of anything. And so we've come a long way, not today, today, the law says private property is to be protected, intellectual property is property. But we didn't do that because all these foreign pressure, we didn't do that because this young man, for his self-interests, he wanted to sell his software globally and 20% is too low, go for 40%. But before you do that, you need to be accepted and respected by your international partners. You need to do lawfully trade with other patents owner. So for self-interests, many Chinese entrepreneurs started to do this. Now government doesn't have to collect all these counterfeiting disks, burn them in Tiananmen Square to demonstrate government's attitude. Entrepreneurs are doing this for self-interest, collectively, we made a lot of progress. A perfect example per scale, China is still learning, it's a developing country, not developed yet. I wanna just go back to that gentleman's question about financial systems. I absolutely agree with you that we've quickly, through becoming world's manufacturer at our own cost, environmental cost, living standard being very low, think about those migrating workers. I just saw a very moving episode of TV program a few days ago by CCTV where China has tens of millions kids that are left behind in poor countryside because their parents, both of them, or migrating workers, and living in very poor condition and producing what they didn't have before. Now they wanna have more. So China has paid a heavy price and quickly accumulated a few things. A lot of foreign reserves still learn what to do with it. And a reputation of being the very, very low cost and very, very efficient manufacturer. But again, one of the things we're doing is to try to invest in foreign companies with technology brand and bring them back to China to satisfy the ever-growing Chinese consumption requirement. With all the efficient factories that are in China, they were so busy producing for the rest of the world and haven't paid a lot of attention to Chinese domestic need. Now they have to turn inward and see what we do to define a product for Chinese consumers. So China is very, very large economically, but not very strong. One of the perfect example is financial systems. We have all this cash. Why is it stashed? Because we don't have financial systems that facilitate professionals that can manage them professionally. If you ask China to place the trillions of dollars in the rest of the world without buying treasury well, I don't know China know how to do it. So that's to be developed. And that's being developed. So I think you can see this restructuring going on. Much of that is moving from pure manufacturing to more service. Much of that is moving from a pure internal sort of focus to more of a global perspective. And now the concern is probably too many resources are flooding into the financial sector because it's a lot more profitable than manufacturing. Our premier was recently talking about how he was concerned that resources are flooding into the financial sector instead of the manufacturing. People are used to the ideas of overnight millionaires, billionaires through financial operations. We are having so many private equity companies, so many investment companies, but we don't have enough great Chinese manufacturers who truly manufacture world-class products like Samsung or Sony. Pascal. Well, on the narrative, first, I wonder whether your CCTV program about Chinese kids is for domestic consumption or for consumption abroad. I would be surprised if it was for consumption abroad. That would be, again, one of my recommendation. Second, your phone apps business narrative is absolutely great, but this is not the dominant narrative. So you have to make sure that it's become the narrative changes to experiences, stories like yours, rather than the sort of stereotypes. That's fine, that's fine. Second, on the currency issue.  That's why we're leaving that issue to you. Let the others speak, otherwise, you know, it's a musky topic. I'll say it, you would say. I have to take a bit of risk. And I think it's, of course, it's correlated to this issue what to do with a few trillions. I think everybody agrees on two things, so that I remain reasonably neutral. First, the renminbi is undervalued, and there's broad agreement on that. The disagreement starts when answering the question, how much? Is it 5%? Is it 30%? Boa? Then you've got economists all over the place, including, by the way, IMF economists who gave us a very wide range. Second, everybody agrees that the renminbi should be internationalized. That's the official policy of the Chinese authorities, of the governor too, of the Chinese central bank. But we all know that if the renminbi revalues to the dollar, this will have an impact on the accounts of the Chinese system, because it will depreciate the value of the dollar-denominated assets. And this is a big political problem, which, again, other people on the planet don't understand because they don't care about the PNL of their central bank at all. In China, they do. So if this results in a big write-off of U.S. denominated assets, this will be a political problem. And lastly, I 100% agree with the fact that the handicap, as seen by the Chinese authorities, who want to move in this direction? They've never had a sort of surplus accumulation, policy for the sake of protecting this island, which is China from external threats. It never worked this way. They have a serious problem with the under-development of the financial system. When you discuss with Chinese economies, or with the central bank, on what would be the impact of the revaluation of the renminbi, you've got opinions in China all over the place, whether this would result in outflows or inflows of money. Some will say, be careful, this will result in huge inflows of money. Others will say, oh, be careful, this will result in huge outflows of money. So it's a very complex issue. And the reason behind this is true. The system is not sophisticated enough. The lady in the second room might have a response to some of Pascal's comments. In-Chien from University of Hong Kong. Dependent talk a lot about perceptions and when narratives and China's challenge really to tell the stories, the real stories, like the stories of the global shapers here. Now, I think the Chinese leadership's keenly aware of this, so it's a state policy to expand China's soft power. What has it done right? What has it done wrong? And how can it do better? So that the true stories of China can be told. Greg? I'll address that, but let me first to say just about the currency, I meant to talk about the narrative. I fundamentally agree that there's this tension in China about revaluation. On the other hand, China does have these longer term objectives, which are to have a global financial market and also to have the R&B become a reserve currency. Which will happen. It's already starting to happen in countries that trade largely with China and they hold their R&Bs for trading purposes. But since the R&B is not fully convertible, there's strong limits on how far you can go. You can't really have a global financial market in Shanghai without full convertibility. So one way to solve the R&B problem is not to focus on the R&B problem at all, but to focus on speeding the route to convertibility. And that will essentially take the control of the R&B out of the hands of the Chinese government. It will put it in the hands of the market. And it'll be much more expensive to intervene in the market.  It's not automatic that the R&B will go up. There could be a lot of capital, what do you, free up convertibility. There could be a lot of capital flight in private hands out of China to investments elsewhere. And to financial instruments, it's not necessarily direct investments. So I think it's worth the bet that the Chinese were to move, they tend to be fully convertible by 2020. These are their declared objective. They move, suppose they've set the date forward to 2015, they could neutralize this problem. It's a, right now the R&B issue is looked like, looks like a zero sum game between the United States and China. And that's a really false construct. It would be much better to take it out, play in a different arena, move towards invertibility and let the R&B seek its own level. Would be my recommendation. On the cultural, I was struck by the comment about American investment being a challenge to Europe in the 1960s. There was this famous booklet, The American, that had all the Europe up in arms about American investment. So what narrative overcame the resistance to American investment? I'm not entirely sure, but I think it was people liked American stuff. I mean, what people liked, the TV shows, the movies, the Levi's, the rock and roll. And I think that in a way, the resistance to, and then the McDonald's I suppose also, but the resistance to America, I was largely an acceptance of the picture of the American life. Maybe that's part of the, I mean, you may have had your finger on it, Pascal, that we're producing useful products. We have great TV shows. We have great creative product. The media and entertainment industry, I think had a lot to do with the acceptance of America. And maybe that's a strategy for China to tell your story, tell your story through your cultural products. Well, there's a suspicion of... John, can I stop you over there a little bit? We only have three minutes left. And what I would like to do is that we have two ladies each with a question. I want them to give a very quick, this lady first, very quick questions, very quick answers, and also at the same time, final comment from all four of you. And also I would like to have David Michael and Stephen Roach give a final quick comment as well.  Thank you. Ting Yan from China Business News. So some of the panelists here touched upon the domestic consumption issue previously. So I'd really like to go back to that issue and share some of the feelings from general public in China. So no matter how much Chinese companies and governments go overseas to invest, but it takes forever for these effects to trickle down to general public. And so why are we never short of money investing overseas? Well, we're always short of money investing domestically like education for rural children and everything. And why are we giving out school buses to foreign countries while we are having so many school bus accidents domestically? So people are just asking these questions because investing overseas does not, might show we are a strong nation, but investing on our people makes our strong nation. Thank you. It might be a narrative issue domestically as well. We'll be over there. You said people like American stuff and you're right, but I think people don't like some American stuff and like the penalty, racial segregation for many years. But I think in some sense, America has managed to export the best part or some of the best part and all the countries have not looked so much at other sides. I agree. Time for short and powerful final comment. You want to start? Okay. Well, I certainly ties back to my point where capital allocation is a fundamental decision the Chinese government has to make. And if there's equal returns, I would certainly have a bias towards domestic investment. My final comment would be that there's always problems, but China is a remarkable success story over the last 10 years. There will be problems over the next 10, but you see a really impressive upward growth track for the country. So I'm certainly optimistic. China has developed very successfully, very fast economically in the last 30 years. Too fast for its entire system to have a balanced advance, so much so that while we are big, we still don't know how to do many things we're learning. Too fast, so much so that rest of the world are not used to Chinese to become the buyer of things and towards in their neighborhood. And I think this is all good problem to have for the world and the Chinese need to learn how to communicate better. The rest of the world also need to learn how to communicate better. I think the key, this may be idealistic, is to let people see people. People wanted to have the same dream and good life and not be hijacked by national political rhetoric so much so that believes that drives it. Eventually, that fades away and people better their lives as a common dream will last. Pascal. Yeah, two very clear conclusions, at least for me. A, get ready for more Chinese investment abroad. This will happen. Second, and it's good for all. This is at least what I believe. Second, better improve the narrative so that public perceptions are framed according to the reality of the economic benefits and social benefits of that. And this is a responsibility first and foremost for the Chinese. And second, for, let's just say, rest of the world political leaders who have, and I'm sorry to say that very frankly, to stop ceding to these demagogic stereotypes that are antagonizing the people instead of showing the benefits of a corporation. And this is all the more necessary in times of a tough, hard social and economic crisis. I agree with everything Pascal just said, but on top of it, let's remember, this is a nation that has taken more people across the poverty line in 30 years than across the poverty line in 100 years of industrial revolution in Western Europe and North America. And there's, again, as many people across the poverty line in the next 30 years. It's a remarkable story. And consequently, I'd say two things. One, use some of your trillions to solve your own domestic problems, correct the imbalances, invest in your safety net, invest in your infrastructure of social services to help China's progress continue. And second, I agree with Pascal, tell your story, it's a great story. I mean, eventually the politicians will be silenced if the people outside China understand China's ascendancy and what China can contribute to the world. Thank you, Rick. Very, very final comment from David and Steve. So there's recently a presidential primary in South Carolina. And nobody could criticize foreign investment because the economy in South Carolina is so heavily driven by Korean, German, Japanese factories. And that's the future. China will take its place alongside those other investors. And we will get through the narrative. We'll get through the currency issues as well as we look at just the increasing wage rates in China. We'll bring about that rebalancing. I think the single most important thing we can all do is work together to help China develop successfully. The set of development challenges yet to be solved by China in the next decade are massive. The good side of that is it means there's massive profit and investment opportunities for companies that seize the moment. Steve. We're getting redundant here. But Premier Wenjia Bao has stated very clearly that Chinese economy is unstable, unbalanced, uncoordinated, and ultimately unsustainable. This issue is right at the heart of his concerns. And to reiterate the points that many have made, it's not just the narrative. It's about taking the trillions and dealing with the long overdue rebalancing of the Chinese economy, which is critical for sustainable economic development. That's what this is all about. It is not just a narrative. Well, thank you everybody for contributing to this CCTV debate. And I'm encouraged that we always have some sort of consensus at the end. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you, Red. You did a great job.