Probably there are people coming directly from banks. Is that correct? How many? Good. Do we have external asset managers? A few. Excellent. Others would be lawyers. Or what type of, yes? Now the types of activities. Very good. So yes, this is a subject that is influencing our lives. Here is the current situation. First of all, we had started in 2005, especially with the EU savings directive in banks. It's a change that hasn't been totally integrated yet, the cultural change. Then of course we have heard a lot about data exchange from the OECD. We had the Rubik agreements with initially United Kingdom, Germany and Austria, and Germany backed down in the last minute. But the Rubik is those agreements where the bank is a paying agent, have been implemented. Now we have national changes for many countries at the same time. And of course we have FATCA, which is the US reporting names, the one names. And the agreement with the US Department of Justice, which is actually going to take money from quite a number of banks. Now all this of course amounts to a lot of pressure internally. We are having pressure from FINMA with new regulations. And we have also the Swiss Federal Tax Administration. And I'm quite sure that the first tax inspections for those things are going to come soon. And so this is a lot of pressure. Now we don't need to give you too much of a background about that because I probably think you know. There is something I would like to tell you about this. And this. And this is why European countries, a good reason why European countries are after these changes. Well, it's very simple. The European member states of the EU were in the position of casino addict, meaning that they're gambling, you know, gambling compulsion. And in order to stop that, they first made promises which they didn't keep. And then they went to the European Union and basically asked to some form of introduction. So they say, okay, we need to take some measures so that we don't go over our budgets. And therefore starting 2013, some measures need to be taken and it's a form of self-introduction, if you want. Result is what? The result is called the European Fiscal Compact, entering to force 1st January 2013. And the result is that member states cannot have to rush to find new tax measures. Because if you can't make more debts, then you have to raise, you can have either to cut the cost or raise the taxes. Which means that the 25 member states have gone into a mad rush of improving their financial situation. Not counting the situation of Spain, Greece and so on. Which, however, the European Union has a serious problem. The European Union does not have the majority rule on tax matters. Which means that the meetings of ecofine, which were supposedly there in agreement, are shopping lists. So there is not real will, there is no clear concept. The Commission has a concept, but it's not, we can't say what the European Union wants in terms of taxes. Because the European Union doesn't have the right to want. Because there is unanimity rule, so any country could raise their hand and make a veto. So that's the situation. Anyway, the problem is that they didn't give them clear instructions how to do that. So each one rushes in their own direction and we get what we call tax balcanization. Meaning each country goes with their own rules. So Spain goes with their own rules. France goes with their own rules. And Germany and everyone goes with their own rules. So for the moment, I wouldn't say that we are going toward a single financial market. Actually, we're getting further by the day. Okay, so this is a problem. Hopefully this is going to be a momentary crisis. But for the moment, we are in a situation of tax balcanization. And how does this affect us in Swiss financial place? That we have to answer those new demands, which are new reports. Mainly they are reporting requirements, but can be increases of tax rates and so on. And the problem, what is the result for us? Well, this is the result. I think we tend to go in a form of panic-driven management. Let's face it. You know, the conflict with the U.S., OECD, MIFE2, U.S. Savings Tax, Ruby, KYC regulations, reporting, all these things tend to throw the financial industry into panic mode. So what is it that is happening? Actually, what is happening is a new age. But this is something that we have started ourselves. And that has been a decision taken, and this is a strategic decision for the financial marketplace, which is this. Assets of clients are either fiscalized or will soon be. Period. There's no if and buts. This is the way it's going to be. So basically, if that is the rule, then, of course, it changes the relationship between the clients and the banks, between the banks themselves. This changes a lot of things. And so we will go from a paleotropic age. Trapeza in Greek means the bank. Paleo means the old. So that means the age of old banks. And we will go to a neotropic age where bankers will have to have hard skills. So we go from an older version, which was wearing suits and which was called proto-fiscalensis, which means before taxes, and we have the homo-bankarius after tax. And they will have to, in addition to their soft skills, they will have to develop the hard skills. So the soft skills would be anything which characterizes Swiss banking system in terms of welcoming clients, making them feel comfortable, and giving them this environment that is necessary to conduct proper banking. The question is, between A and B, is there going to be an extinction? So who is going to survive and who is going to die? That's the question. That's a good question. And of course, the question can go directly for any person who works for a financial institution. Am I in the list of the future extinct companies or am I not? And if I survive, what am I going to become? What does this change of functioning, of environment? Do I need to change my strategy and so on? This is the subject of today. So there are two ways to approach the matter. The first way is the traditional macro-economic top-down approach, which I think is pretty much the standard approach which you see most of the time in newspapers, in studies, political-economic studies, which are macro-economic approach. So we look at the international political situation, which I have started to do, start to some degree. And we look at the financial markets. We know, okay, there are the U.S., there are the European Union. And then there is China, because we are looking at Renminbi and the Chinese markets. And we at the Asia, and we look at our model, we see how this impacts Switzerland. And there we have FIMA, the Federal Council, and we'll see how this will impact the banks. Kind of a top-down approach. There is a second approach. Before I introduce it, I will just tell you how I tend to work with my banks. This will also tell you a little with my clients. The ideas is that, of course, I provide consulting, strategic, and operational, which also leads to operational audit and training. Training has become a massively important thing, because, for example, if you want to train staff on the rules of Rubik, it's a lot of work. I think to train properly somebody, I think it would take at least a week with exercises, which I do. This is the time for training. Depending on the specialty, of course, some people would need more, and some people would need less, with exercises and everything. Now, we can have the back office with all the calculations. And, of course, we have the front office, because why is it important? Because we need to do asset allocation and analysis. Before, in order to do that, we need to know the impact. It's like, this is driving the car, this is repairing the car, or affecting the maintenance of the car. There are two types of different types of knowledge and competence. Of course, there isn't coaching. What do I don't do? I don't do market analysis and investment. That is not my job. I don't do legal advice. I don't do tax advice. I don't do regulatory audit. But you say we're working on operational audit and operational tax. Yes, but that's application. That's not advice. Okay, so we are really in the mechanics of things. This is really the picture I want to give, because this is where banks are heading toward a more industrial approach. And I think this word re-industrialization, I think you're seeing that more and more often in the press. Good. So, the second way to look at problems is as a bottom-up approach. We start from, let's imagine that the financial industry is like the electrical industry. Just for a minute. Bottom, we have infrastructures. We have nuclear reactors. We lack or dams. These are the companies and stock exchanges. We have payment systems. We have security settlement systems. All these infrastructures, some of you probably are familiar with the Swiss value chain. We call the Swiss value chain, which is basically our electrical wiring of the Swiss financial marketplace, which is run by six. But there are other things which participate to that financial infrastructure. On the top of that, we have banks. And each bank is an industrial unit doing a certain type of service and product. They have to provide that service and that service needs to provide enough income and sufficient bottom line so that they stay afloat. And there, of course, tax provides operational constraints. Now, we have another problem that some of you may be more familiar than others. This is upstream taxes. Upstream taxes is like when you invest in France and they take, I'll remember by heart, for dividends. They might take 25% upstream tax. And on top of that or in deduction of that, you need to pay taxes. But there are double taxation treaties and so on. So this is a complex mechanics. So you have one bank, one bank, one bank, one bank, and you have source states with different cases. And of course you have your clients who are living in different places, different countries, beneficial owners. And actually it makes it more complicated because we are thinking about beneficial owners, not account holders. There can be more beneficial owners for a single account or portfolios. So this introduces complexity. So we have these things and we have to look at bank, bank, bank, banks, source states, source states, source states, source states, source states. And we have country, country, country, country, country. And this gives us a picture of all these things. And then we can get a general picture, which is a picture of reality as it is, and not as we would like it to be. And from that picture, which is really, so let's, we forget about the environment or everything. We're looking at ourselves and try to generalize a picture of the Swiss financial marketplace. And what do we find? Well, this is what we find. There are four findings. I'm showing them one by one and then I'm going to go in detail for each of them. First of all, wealth management banks will occupy the same market niche but will change their structure. Meaning, if you, maybe you're wondering what type of business banks will do in the future, I would say essentially the same as before. This is reassuring. But they will change their structure. We'll see that in detail because that is the important part. The second one is whatever the regulatory choices in Switzerland workload will not vary significantly. This is completely counterintuitive. I will explain you why. This is not, that's not what's in the Brunetti report, I'm afraid, but that's the truth. Whatever the regulatory choices in Switzerland workload will not vary significantly. So basically this tells us we should stop worrying about what the federal counseling is going to do next because the work is going to be more or less the same. Then the third one is new procedure will be required in order to access the European fiscalized market. And the trend is to what becoming a paying agent. Okay, so meaning that banks will be tax collectors. It has been the case since 2005 and whatever we say this might be the trend because that's the trend in Europe. Achieving compliance and profitability is a life and death proposition and I think this is the most intuitive one. Okay, so let's go to the first one. Why should clients keep coming to a Swiss bank? I like this one, you know, this is not a Spanish bank. So people start coming. Of course, there is some truth in it, but it's a limited truth. It just means that it's a mess elsewhere in some countries and it's not a mess still in our country. It doesn't tell anything that we are good. Just say that it's a mess elsewhere and we are in a better position than the others. So yes, this is true, but this is not sufficient to characterize a Swiss marketplace. That would be reductionism. Okay, this is true only to some degree. The unique selling proposition of the Swiss marketplace as we propose it is this one. That's the management of multi-market, multi-product and multi-currency assets for clients coming from multiple countries. This is something that other countries don't have. Okay, you can go to Paris, to London. They might have, okay, supposedly, maybe they can make better performance than us. Maybe they have better techniques on some aspects. Maybe they can, all sorts of things. But that, they don't know how to do. Okay, and this is our unique selling proposition in Switzerland. Nobody else knows how to do that. And I'm going to give you an idea. Let's say you want to open an account in France and essentially maybe a client will go to the bank and say, I would like to invest and make maybe a portfolio, an insurance, you know, maybe a life insurance or something, and whatever is required. And they'll say, very good, we have a very large selection of products, 300 products we have. Good. And that's, of course, that's for one kind of client country, that's France. You say, yes, but sorry, I just come from across the, you know, I just took a train from Barcelona and I'm from Spain. Oh, call the manager. Okay, and then it becomes all more complicated because you're supposed to have a French phone to access the account and to provide French documents and so on. So this is simply not geared toward that. So certainly some banks will have some, of course, will have clients, but that's more or less generally the trend. So what does it give in terms of complexity? Let's say it's a complexity of 300. Now let's take a Swiss bank with 7,000 products. That's conservative. If you go into a bank and look at their file of financial products, 7,000 is okay. That's a good one. Of course, not all of them are being used or are being in portfolio right now, but basically they could be so they have to be studied and evaluated. And of course, they have to be evaluated for each country of each client because each client has a different tax regime. So each country would have, so each of these products would have to be evaluated seven times for each, for example, of your seven countries of clients. What's the complexity level? 49,000. So this is an asset, but I would say this is a challenge. If we want to survive with that asset, we need to raise above the challenge of qualifying our product offering for each of the countries. So we have a massive, massive, massive challenge. And which means that we will have to make a due diligence of the taxing back to each product for each country's tax system, which is a multiplication. Good. So that gives you an idea of the level of complexity we are dealing with. And this takes us to what is called, I think UBS has coined the word complex money. I don't like that word because it's what it is. We had easy money in the past. Now we have complex money. And so we need to basically manage that challenge. And now the second point, which is probably the less intuitive one, is the idea that whatever the federal council will decide this will not impact the workload significantly. Why? Because all tax income taxes in all the countries that I know are based on the fact that the citizen at the end of the year is supposed to provide a tax return to the tax authorities. Meaning that the bank, if the bank is holding assets for the clients, and this is a country that is taxing dividends, interests, capital gain, most of them are doing that. Well, you need to provide them the information so that it can prepare the tax return. Now if they didn't declare it in the past, well, that problem didn't exist. But now that problem exists. So every client of every country will require from the bank the necessary information to make the tax return. That's a fact. So, okay, so we can find an alternative system. Let's say we make a new savings tax and make a rubric tax where the bank is a paying agent. Good. Well, the UK or an Austrian client still have to make the tax return. So if they are not declared, if they have not, so they are paying a source of them that don't have to declare the account and they're paying at the marginal rate, you need to do the full reporting and the full calculation. It's a lot of work. Rubic is a lot of work. So you have to do it. Okay, you do a little less work on this side, but you have to do it on this side. But in the end, it's always a report and it's always calculation. So whichever way you go, it's always the same quantity of work. You can't escape that. And what about exchange of information? Exchange of information is just additional. FATCA is additional. It's not about taxation. It's about names. You do exchange of information. What do you want to exchange? Whatever you want to exchange will be in addition to the rest of the work. It will be in addition to your tax reports. It will be in addition to all the rest. So exchange of information, FATCA, that just adds to the workload. Okay, because in the simplest world possible, we would say, okay, all clients declare themselves, we have to provide enough information to each of these clients to make the tax report. But don't forget that the calculation rules are different in each country. So depending on the country, you have to present the same result, the same transaction chain, building the same position in different ways for each of the countries of the client. So there is no escaping the quantity of work. You go this way, you go that way. That's the regulatory paying agent route. That's the direct reporting route. Same thing. This one has more constraints than risks for the bank, by the way. Okay, so that point, I believe, is fairly clear. The third point is that new procedure for accessing European markets. The European Commission has written documents where they say that financial infrastructure are the plumbing of the bank, and they're usually not considered until they don't work anymore. And the European Commission was not going to make that mistake. Which is good, because I believe in Switzerland we are making that mistake. Of considering the financial infrastructures like the custody system, the payment system and so on, like something that is not worthy of our attention. Technical details. The problem is that those technical details is exactly what landed bankers into trouble with the Department of Justice. Because if you send a check for caching in the US, if you send a US caching and you don't think about the payment system, well, it goes, finally, it settles in a US bank.  Okay, so if you didn't want them to know that it was a very poor idea not to watch very clearly what happens in the payment system, because FATCA and all the systems are all predicated on the financial infrastructures. That's how they work. That's how they keep us. The good financial infrastructures actually are our best weapons. And we have to be interested in cross-border rules, custodians, payment system, tax services, because they are European tax services. And there is a whole work going on in Europe. And guess what? In those documents, in all business advisory group, they don't talk about the European Union like the press always says. No, they always say EU plus AFTA. They don't even say the EEA, the European Economic Area. No, no, no, they say EU plus AFTA. And why did they say that? Because of little Switzerland. Because we are in the middle. And actually, in their maps of the European financial infrastructures, the systems of six are right in the middle.  It's like closing got-out, you know? Nothing happens anymore. So our facilities is like our strategic advantage with the Alps who are right in the heart of Europe. And this is our best card for negotiations. And because for them, I think for the European, the importance of Switzerland is much more clear than the importance of Switzerland for the Swiss. That's a paradox. I think we tend to be in an idea that we are so unimportant. But it's not true. It's not true because we are holding a massive financial infrastructure. And by the way, we are the first creditors of the US in Europe. Which is not too bad. Even in the UK, it's behind us.  So for the technical facts, but I don't have time to cover that in detail, we have three levels. We have the level of the financial product, which is custodian and the country. So where is it deposited? What are the rules in that country? We have the level of the bank in Switzerland. So we will have upstream tax. And then we have the level of downstream, which is the level of the client. So this is very technical. And we have all these rules. But since we might have some upstream taxes we have the double taxation treaty between UK and Spain. So we have to think, not about the double taxation of treaties between Switzerland and for cross-border clients, we have to be able to think in terms of these two countries. Okay. And then because of that, then a client will have the right to claim for a refund, which is work, takes time, costs money, but also something that you can charge a client, depending on how your business model is made. So this is something, of course, that is going to be requested, because if you don't do that, you end up paying 10% more tax. So if you pay a 35% tax already on interest, whatever interest on German debt is, and you already pay 35% tax, plus you have 10% that you didn't get the refund, I'm not exactly sure it's really worth it to invest. You know, and what is your profit after tax? These 10% are important. So we have all these complex mechanics of, of course, that for a Swiss bank, you would have, if the product was bought in Switzerland, then we have the Swiss upstream tax, which is a participate. And we have the UK domestic tax. We have countries with which the UK has a double taxation treaty. And we have also countries which have actually a facilitated management of these upstream taxes so that you don't have to require a refund, but actually you have an upfront deduction. Because there are these, the QIs, the US system, where actually you can put your clients in different pools. So actually they pay upfront the right amount of tax. They don't pay 30%, but they might pay 15% if they're UK, I don't know exactly what the amount is. So they are in the right pool so they don't have to ask for refunds, which is a competitive advantage for the US financial market place. And of course it would be good if we did that in Switzerland too, because that would privilege our companies. This is something which has been in the discussions for some time and still in this discussion process. So how can we achieve that in Switzerland too? Because if we managed to have deduction instead of refund, that would give an advantage to our industry, our large companies. And everything which is on the Swiss exchange, Swiss companies. And of course there are countries which have no double taxation treaty, which is again another matter, more complicated. In any case, these clients need to declare in the end to his tax authorities. So whether he's Rubik declared, whether he's Rubik, and he has to pay a tax through the Swiss bank in the end, it always ends up as a declaration to those guys. So if we ask the Rubik mechanics, which is a rather complex thing and I don't have time to go too much in detail, I think I could speak about that for 20 minutes, but first look that is rather complicated. And we have, this is the channel from which you have dividends and interest, primary market, and this is the channel where you have disposals and so on through the secondary market. Schematically and you have the interaction between the European Savings Directive and Rubik which is, I think, when somebody has really understand how you make the connection between all these things, I think you're good for graduation. And the first one is a life and death proposition. I believe it's fairly clear. We had last week or two weeks ago a denouncement from Bank Frey to say, basically we have clients, we have everything we need, but because of all these red tape and probably because of a problem with forms called double nine and double eight ban, which are IRS forms, well they just, so they had too much trouble with the US Department of Treasury and the US Department of Justice because of US regulation, which is called F-bar, plus the UBS case, plus the lever lease, plus, plus, plus, plus, plus, and they threw up their arms in despair and they are going to basically make an orderly retreat. So, and they will cease to exist as such. And this is basically, this is the problem.  Yes, maybe not. But one may be killed, the bank is the amount of red tape, the amount of work, the amount of daily routine that needs to be implemented for which we don't have originally the equipment when we're not equipped for that. So the thing that might kill a bank is not necessarily that, but actually everything that goes around it. So I would like also to give a little background information. This industrial requirement has been precipitated by tax demands. But I think it would have happened anyway. Because this is just an industrial, the tax authorities requested it from the banks because they thought the banks right now should have the technology to do that because the technology exists. Ten years ago they would have never required it because the technology didn't exist. So they thought, well, since the technology exists, then we can ask them from the banks. But if the tax authorities had not requested it from the banks, who would have the clients? Because for them they expect, because the world is evolving, that they get better reporting, that they get reporting in any way that they want. They want, maybe they don't want anymore to have hold mail in the bank, but they want to have a secure delivery of their documents. They want to have their financial statements delivered, they want the tax statements delivered, even regardless of tax. So this is a trend and this has been precipitated by tax. But it would have happened anyway. However, it would have happened in a more calm way without challenging us to that point. That's the problem. So where do we go from now? Well, so that's the question, where do we go? We know more or less where we are, we need an orientation on where to go. First of all, what are the three drivers for a financial institution? This has always been true, but now we have to say it. The first one is we have to generate performance for our clients. I think at least conserve the value, but better if we can generate performance. So that's a purpose really for the business. And that's the main purpose and that remains the main purpose. But there is a second thing, and of course when there was easy money coming and there was this advantage and the market was going fine, all the other aspects looked so unimportant, so we didn't have to pay too much attention to that. But now, of course, the level of regulation has gone up. We have to pay attention to that constraint. Always existed. We always had regulation. But right now, this level of regulation has gone up. And actually this tax has actually killed client performance. Because now we are interested in client performance after tax. How many of you have a clear idea of performance after tax? Good. One, two, three, a few. And that's the important thing, you see? Because I mean, it's like when you're buying an airplane and you say the ticket is 102 euros and when you finish your check-in and it says airport fees, taxes and credit card fees, don't forget that. You get that much amount. This is irritating for the client. They want to know what's left on their account. And then, of course, there is a third one, which is very important, which is the corporate profitability. And we know that all this exerts a pressure on the bottom line of the bank. So this is an operational constraint. That is the one that may kill the bank or any financial institution right now. Is it that? I don't think so. Well, because in 2001 when the markets crashed, I mean, the clients were in trouble. The banks weren't. I mean, yes, they had less turnover and they had less operations. I mean, they had less income for those years. But the capital of the bank was not put in danger. But right now what we are talking is the capital of the bank itself, is at risk because basically whatever the costs of any settlement or any problem or any accident is paid by the banks from its own capital or own reserves or whatever. So these are operational constraints. What is more expensive than being compliant? Not being compliant. Okay, so what should a bank become in order to survive? A learning bank. Meaning a change really like realizing that we live in a new environment there are thousands of things to learn. The tax specialist must become an operational specialist. An operational specialist must become a tax specialist. We have to have this cross-disciplinary approach. And the idea is a bank that having master tax compliance is now able to move on to re-conquer its market niche. So we should not believe that we are now on the top of where we were.  And we need to re-conquer that. So in order to do that we have to make a quantum leap and a complete change compared to anything we had known so far in Switzerland. Yes, we had excellent banks. We had very good administration. But there was before that was the old age. The new age has new requests, new requirements. And the old structure of banks is no longer sufficient. So the three conditions, so I need to make it short. The three conditions to be on square one I would say that the first one is a commitment of the board in general management. And that may be something we always say when we manage operational risk and we want to do something in a bank, we need to have the commitment. But this is actually the most single, most important thing. That is to get on square bank, basically there must be a realization that the old age is dead and we are in a new age. With new strategies to find food, we are on the same ecological niche, yes. But we need to find new strategies to occupy that niche. Maybe we were animals that were picking low-hanging fruits. Now maybe we have to become like giraffes and to pick the high-hanging fruits. So same ecological niche, but different strategies. The second one, of course, it's very good to take decisions, but we need a roadmap. Otherwise it's just a Christmas or New Year wish, you know, resolution. I'm going to be a good guy next year. We need to have a roadmap to know how to get there. And of course, start upgrading the pre-existing processes and tax processes. Are we doing something right now? Okay, so then when we are square one, there are four phases. These are experimental, pragmatic phases, which we have seen from observation and from generalizing observation. The first one is conquering internal information. This is very difficult. Most projects which are having trouble with tax and implementation of a rubik or implementation of anything are stuck in that one. Because if you want to do correct calculation, you first have to have correct data and complete data. This is the single most and that's one. And I would say that many banks are still here. Trying to struggle with their internal information and acquisition prices and so on. And the second one is operational excellence, meaning that you need to put together the procedures and everything which is needed to produce. I will go more in detail. The third one, when you have that and you know that you master your general processes, then you can go to counter-specific strategies, not before. And then complex money. Okay, the phase one is conquering internal information. For example, having the correct data. What type of core banking system? Beware of fossil banking system that were developed before the age of relational databases. I tell you, it's not a joke to work with those things when you have to do tax calculations. And so the more modern are more adapted. That's a fact. Banks will enter IT even small, maybe at an advantage. Kind of counter-intuitive, but it's true. I mean, even a bank with 15 people, they have one or two good guys in IT, they may have a better time to market than the others. And significantly lower costs. Of course, what about small or bank, bigger banks? Which one is at an advantage? Well, not obvious. Big banks have massive teams, perhaps and so on, but they have to solve every single particular case. Meaning that programs are going to be horribly complicated. The databases are going to be horribly complicated. And managing exception is going to be a huge task. But if you're small, maybe you're just handling a certain niche type of thing, then you're focusing on a certain type of activity and you can master it because you can master the complexity. So a small one can be good as a big one. I don't think any... So I would argue that the idea that because one is a bank, is that with less than 10 billion of assets under management, you might have heard that theory, I think it's wrong. Then movements of assets in and out, those who are familiar with the subject, acquisition costs, change of beneficiaries, I think I could talk about that shortly for an hour, just about that. Okay. In phase two, once you have your acquisition costs and all your data about tax status for each country and so on, then you can start the revolution. The revolution is like the evolution we had in the 1990s or even 80s before that when we got into coal banking systems plus Swift and so on. We have same processes, but we have to review our account opening procedure. We have to... And the closing procedure, the execution of orders because we might have stand-duty and this type of complexities. The settlement of orders because settlement, of course, is getting more complicated because we have the... Stock exchange taxes, upstream taxes, stock exchange taxes and then we have capital gain and all this type of things. And corporate actions, of course, this one is also a subject we could speak for hours. In any case, we have transaction data, which was the phase one and only when you have your correct data, you can switch to the second phase, which is the purpose and the result, the deliverable of that phase is generic reporting. That starts making sense. So what we call generic reporting in 2013 is way more... The quality level that we require is way higher than it used to be in 2012 or 2011. So generic reporting is important. And then when you have generic reporting, you can go into country specific strategies. And of course, each of these countries have forms Modello, in Italy you have Scarto, Rispari, Mugistito and all these kind of strange things they have for each country. This is the European tax vulcanization. And of course, for the British, you have resident non-domiciled and all these kind of things.  There are not only tax constraints, there are constraints with the custodians, with the paying agents, industrial constraints. You buy the equipment or you make the right contracts with the right providers, you can have what you want. You don't have, you don't do it. So it can happen now that you can have that scene that you say, okay, next year we go to the Spanish market. And then maybe the COO says, no sir, we're not going to the Spanish market next year. This is the way, but I'm the boss and this needs to happen. Yes, but you're not going because we don't, unless you're willing to invest in the infrastructure. And of course, this might take a few months, but if you're willing to invest in infrastructure and we can make an evaluation of how much this is going to cost you, you have to build a plant, then we can serve the Spanish market. No plant, no market, five minutes. And of course then this leads us to generic reporting and all the regulatory reportings. You know, which are all these types. You have the country specific, the regulatory that we have to do anyway because we are in Switzerland and of course there is a reimbursement. So a lot of work. And then we go into complex money, which is actually now that we have all these industrial structures, now we can start marketing that industrial structures to clients and provide them the product they want. And of course then we have to put together all these things so that we need to have a strategy of what product we sell to what country. Who has a clear idea of what strategy of financial products need to sell to every country because they're going to be different. Some banks are more advanced than others. Of course there is all this regulatory, so irreproachable business conduct, which is a very important concept in Switzerland. And here we have sustainability and of course for the client trustworthy management and performance. Complex money is a cycle. You do calculations very good. Now you do the reporting. Good. Now you get client and a REM feedback. Why is it that we're paying so much tax and so on, taxes and so on. So you do research, then you rebalance. And then we start again. Until we find a good strategy for that country. Now I give you an example of what happens if you make a mistake for the UK. Let's say you have two funds. You sell the first one with a loss of 500 and you sell the second one with a loss of 100. You have made 500 income, right? So in a good case, that's what the UK is going to tell you. You compensate the loss with the win. This is 500. You pay 27%. That's the marginal rate. And you're going to pay that much tax. So you're going to pay 27%. You buy the wrong funds. So this is other income. No deduction of losses. So income, 1,000. Marginal rate for this represent. Total tax, you end up paying 86%. I think that's a good case for rebalancing a UK portfolio. So question, are we able to assess the client base according to tax residents? For each country, we say UK, this is our strengths, this is our weakness, opportunities, threats, whatever, the way you want to do it, of course. France, that you know exactly how many assets under management you have, the number of portfolios, the number of beneficial owners, and what type of products you want to sell them. That's complex money. So it means that you have to know how each product in your bank or that you're proposing to your client is going to perform for that type of client, for that type of country. If you know that, you're in complex money. And the formula for survival is outperformance after tax plus profitability. That's the formula, while being compliant. That's the cost, that's the penalty. And here is a conclusion. You have everything on one page. So you have the findings, the four findings we have found before. We have the preliminary steps, the phases. And the formula for survival. And I'm almost in time. And so thank you for your attention. And if you want to ask questions, I think it's the moment for questions, or you want to say something? Thank you for your attention. Who has the first question? What should then come first? What's my answer to Singapore? To be honest, that's a good point because I think there are competitors. I'm not a specialist of Singapore, but I believe in Switzerland we have a long tradition, probably closer to Europe. And we have a client base. So we have to keep it and be better than they are. So it's like asking the Swiss clock industry how do you compare with the Japanese? I think we just have to be better than they are. But we have already a client base. We have a brand and we have an experience, maybe in customer service that maybe gives us an advantage. We still have the plumbing. So that would be my answer. Maybe not very satisfactory, but it means that the race is on. So if we want to, we have to win it. Yes, that's a question. There are some reports or comments that have been made recently of how many banks should disappear in Switzerland due to the changed environment. Are you equally negative regarding how many banks will not survive from what you have seen and from your analysis? That's the first part of my question. The second part of my question is what do you think will be the bigger obstacle for those banks? Is it the performance and profitability or the compliance that makes disappear the most institutes? Okay. So for the first part of your question, I will say I would say there is a trend.  So a certain number of banks maybe are going to the wall. Okay, this is possible. But what I say is that this is not inevitable and smaller banks have perfectly the possibility of surviving if they take the right decisions. And as I said, the assets on the management are not your criteria. The real criterion is how much cash you have at hand and how much turnover you can handle. Meaning you can be a bank with 10 billion assets under management and you could maybe have 100 staff and you have the same bank with the same assets under management and 250 staff. Guess which one is going to survive. Okay, so it just means efficiency is an important thing. Not the assets under management, but the efficiency.  Now for the second part, what is the biggest obstacle? I would say this is square one. I think this is the biggest obstacle. Meaning whether one really wants to change the way one operates and it's like an entrepreneur risk. That's the real issue. I mean, do I want to take that entrepreneur risk of in that changing environment to change the way my business works and changing it, do I want to go through all that trouble? I think this is the main thing. But I would say that most banks unless they're already in big trouble because of compliance issues, meaning that they're already in the targets of the Department of Justice or whatever or they might think they don't make it. But if a bank has a sufficiently sound situation I would say it's an entrepreneurship decision. Do I want to go through all the trouble? And when that is done, I think a human-sized bank can perfectly survive. So that would be the first one. Then, of course, the third one is a profitability issue. That's a key one, certainly. That's a profitability issue because a regulation will not kill you performance, but profitability, yes, because then you're no longer there to pay the salaries and then you have to close the business because in the end, this is what counts. So the regulation pushes down, of course, profitability and performance, but in the end, what will define whether a bank is still in business or not is its profitability. So efficiency would be being effective, getting the results when they want to and then efficient, yes? I don't see where the option comes from of doing it or not. This is licensed to operate. Yes. You do it no matter the length or not or you are out of business. Exactly. There are various ways to go out of business. One way is just to sell the bank or to sell part of the clients. You could say, okay, I don't want to deal with those clients or with that client base or you sell the bank. And actually, a number of banks have already done that in the last month. We have integration projects going on right now in the banks for banks which just say, okay, we don't think it's a good idea to continue that business because we are no longer interested. It's too complicated and too much risk. Or you say, I want, you know, it's an entrepreneurship, basically it's an entrepreneurship decision. You want to do it or you don't want to do it? Did I answer your question? Yes. There are ways out. You know, some banks can decide, okay, we will revert to be external asset managers. We don't want to bother anymore with being in banks too complicated. There's too many regulation risks and so on. We want to be an external asset manager. Why not? But of course you get out of the business but you can do that. Or a bank can fail, of course. If you'll find a question. Can we just make an external asset manager? I'll ask a question and I'll try to explain it. I'm curious how much you think that the Swiss structure, Swiss banking structure will change over time in what we've seen happen as a result of the U.S. That's where the external asset manager comes up. The reason I say this is the one thing we've learned with the U.S. is to go cross-border. This isn't about tax anymore, it's about cross-border investment regulations. For a bank to stay in the business with U.S. clients to request an execution, it needs an SEC license in its own to cross-border. Or it needs to work with an external asset manager who has an SEC license. What we've seen in the past is that Europe as an example tends to follow the U.S. The U.S. as directed came from the back of the QI. Part two will come off the back of that account, et cetera, et cetera. So my question is as Switzerland and the U.S. source out its problems, as the U.S.A. is fixed, and European countries start copying, is this actually going to see a significant change in how all the banks will come because the execution house is relying on cross-border licenses, relying on E&M for private relationships. If the U.S., Swiss model comes into play across the board, that's a significant change to what Swiss banking is going to do. Yes, you're asking the $1 billion question. Yes, at that point it's a political issue. I believe that, as I said, the EU is not against, per se, Switzerland. So I think Switzerland would have a good card to put the ships with the European Union. The second thing is that the political and diplomatic situation of the U.S. has been a little damaged in the last weeks. And for example, France was supposed to sign an inter- governmental agreement with the U.S. Unfortunately, the minister Muskovich won't then find the door closed because there was a shutdown. Now that he's back in France, then because of another matter which is called NSA, they summoned the U.S. ambassador so probably Muskovich is not going likely to go to Washington in the next weeks to sign that inter-governmental agreement. In May we will have the shutdown virtually in Europe because there are the European elections. So the situation is still kind of confused, but that's the political side of the matter. And of course the cross-border constraints and the access to the market is, I think, one of the that's the tip of the iceberg. But what I want to impress on you is that that's only the tip of the iceberg. Behind we have the market infrastructures and our market infrastructures are also access to the market because we are in the center of Europe. So all that part which is below the the water is actually a big card that we have because we can say, yes why are we discussing about that? There is this whole thing about to discuss you know and then we put the whole thing together it's like in the electrical industry okay we all have in mind the last mile but the battle is on the power plants, the distribution and all these things. And if we fight on for the last mile for the rest of Europe and the world fights for the power plants and so on we are missing an opportunity. So we need to fight for the power plants and the electrical lines. And there we have actually very good infrastructure in Switzerland. So this is the thing and this will depend how Switzerland manages but there are also if we are really mechanical if you leave me two minutes maybe I can give you an example. You remember when we had the Euro introduced we of course had a concern that what about Switzerland with the Swiss francs being excluded from the payment systems.  Probably not many know that we said okay we are excluded from the Euro system but we have a Swiss payment system. We are going to build in Switzerland a Euro paying infrastructure which is called Eurosic and to do that we are going to build the Swiss banks together. A bank in Germany which is called the Swiss European Clearance Bank which exists and still exists probably unless it changes its name. And basically which is doing being which has the access to the market infrastructure we have pulled together all our energies and our imagination of the Swiss and we have solved the problem once for all. You see? And that's the way you can solve the access to market. You know for example the problem of access of we can be imaginative the solution only one is good but give you an idea. Let's say it's a problem of having access in the market maybe we could have a foundation of something which is representing all asset managers of Switzerland so that they all have access to the European market whatever. You are affiliated with that one and that they give you your paper and there you are. And the Europeans are more than happy to talk about those decisions but if we are all trying to play unimaginatively and we are just thinking always about our last mile instead of talking to the market infrastructure we forget all these opportunities that we might have to actually win access to the market. So the solution I don't know it but imagination and proposing solutions and the Europeans are more than happy because MIFI2 is a big thing so if we can propose them solutions to solve that first for them without them making new directives and making you and complicating their lives they will be more than happy. That's my idea about that. Probably some politicians might not be happy but globally I think the Europeans might be. Many thanks to Laurent Francescini. So sandwiches are ready outside. Congratulations excellent presentation. Thank you very much.


Welcome to Trafford TV, this is my three things from Bournemouth 2, Everton 2. Number one, frustration. No, it is frustration, but that isn't it. Number one, I'm going to start with the Charleston. Let's start with him being absolutely brilliant in the opening two Premier League games. And in this one, he was decent. He was decent in that opening 40 minutes that he was on the pitch for. Showed some good touches, works really hard, won a lot of headers. Showed like he was a real threat, I feel as though if he stayed on he'd have caused lots of problems to Bournemouth and particularly to the little blert at right back Smith. But he was dismissed. For me, I don't think it was a red card and I don't think it was a red card for the fact that Smith incited, nothing really happens, he put the air. But I understand why the referee sent him off, but for me, if you're going to send one off, the other has to go. You cannot differentiate there because Smith was the aggressor in the whole thing.  For me, a yellow each. It was a booking because you can't do it, but for me it should have been a red each or a booking each and that was it. But what I will say on the challenge is we've seen last week against Southampton where he was tackled in the first half and he didn't like the challenge and the red miss coming, he ran after someone and by the time he'd got over to, I don't think it was war prize, it might have been better. And by the time he got over there, the red miss had settled a bit and he just put a decent challenge in and I'm not a reckless one. I think if he'd got to the ball a bit earlier, he might have swung wildly and then that would have resulted in either a booking or something worse. And I think what he has to learn is he's going to become a target because people are going to look at him and go, he's got fiery temperament and he's a top player. He's put a threat and if he gets at us, we're in danger so you have to try and wind him up, you have to try and get him involved. It's all part of the game, it's not a nice part of the game but it's a part of the game and you have to accept that. You have to accept that and you need to learn to really, he should have just laughed at the kid. When the kid's giving it all lad, he should have just kissed them on the cheek or something or just gone. Well next 50-50, wait, you know, perhaps if he lay in English he could have been giving it the jabber, you know what I mean. I personally would have sucked the ball and make them because he'd had them on talks last season but what for they'd do it again, he's a pissed poor player in him, that's Smith. But he didn't, he gave the referee an opportunity and listen, that probate doesn't need much to stitch us up, he ate us and he's a terrible referee but the challenge has to lay in otherwise he's going to be targeted. Secondly, let's move on from there, let's move on to referees and officials because the pathetic, the absolutely pathetic, this is the third game of the Premier League season and in every one of the games I've spoken about the referee. The first week that balloon person sends Jagelgrff for nothing, allows Ruben Nevers to move a free kick six yards forward to just where he wants it. Surprised he didn't say to the wall, listen, he moved up the way, just let him have a shot.  Jagelgrff has said, we've been out of the tournament. Last week, Lee Mason was an embarrassment to himself, the amount of foul Southampton got away with last week. We played as we were on bookings and he just allowed it to carry on and carry on, embarrassing and then today this clown has rocked up. He evened up the smith thing, he had no choice but to send smith off, it's the letter of the law fair enough he could argue that for a charleson but then smiths are gone as well. But the penalty, the penalty, there's nothing in it, it's not a penalty and he couldn't wait to give it. And all right, if he gives Thompson the one in the first half, which I didn't think was one either, then he gives that one, you go, well, one one and he give that one that wasn't and he's give that one that wasn't but he didn't. He waved Thompson's away, which you expect from Provost and he couldn't wait to get that, they can whistle in his mouth to give a penalty to Bournemouth, he couldn't wait to do it. So they just pissed poor and again I said that in the Instamatiach and it's no wonder we didn't have a single one representing us at the World Cup.  They're incapable of doing the job and the minute the minute VAR gets here, the better because I can't wait, people can go on about it, it'll ruin it and it'll do this. Now mate, what it'll do is it'll actually get the right decisions. Now you know what VAR might look and go, the charleson still has to go, he's been the aggressor, fair enough, but I bet your Adam Smith would have gone as well and then you'd have gone, dickheads, the pair of them, no need, literally no need. The penalty, thousands, not a pen. Talon Wilson, not a pen. Proper decisions, the right decisions. VAR has to come in and it's in our game actually on Wednesday for the Rotherham game and it's got to come in the sooner the better because I want the proper decisions. We've seen incidents already this season, Liverpool wouldn't have got a pen at a palace deal tonight because it never was a pen. There's lots of the things that have gone on that we've seen, challenges in Arsenal and City, the face, Jack Elk is sent off, would that be, if it is, we'll let him check getting sent off. There's just too many things where the free's just gone, you know what, today I'm just giving him a red, the only place for heaven to record, you know, but I'm going, whoa, he plays for City or Liverpool or United or Chelsea, I don't know, I've never read a client, I'll have too much spotlight on me. Nonsense, need taking out their hands because they're incapable, you know, wish I could earn 150 grand a year, I think they're on, with expenses for being totally and utterly inept because it's good. We've got politicians in this country that can't do their job and they're in megabucks, referees for me are just up there with them, absolute con artists. There you go, there's my winch on referees. Third and fourth, finally, and this one, this one hates me a little bit to have to say it but I'm going to say it and that is, there might be time for Bainty to spend some time on it. Layton Bainty, I love him, I love him, but it may just be time for him to have a little bit of time off the team, possibly. I think, I mean, again, rather than Lucas Dean's got to play anyway, he's got to play the whole game and get up to speed, but Bainty today, the penalty and the equaliser even, you know, no, no, it's just, I don't know, it's just, for me, he's still an important member of the squad and he's still a really good footballer, but we've got to, he's just got to be better, he's got to be better. We've got to defend better as a unit and you know what, to be honest, it's all of them, really. I mean, I thought Michael Keane was very good, I didn't think Seamus Coleman was very good today. I didn't really think Mason Holgate, he was okay, Mason, but just a couple of things worry me with him sometimes. Losses of concentration on the ball and stuff. I think all of them as a unit, they've got to be tighter, they've got to be a solid unit and when you go tune them up away from home, you should be able to defend them and get the win. And we haven't blown a two goal lead and let's be honest, they're not a fantastic side, so really, we've thrown it away. So, Bainzy, maybe, maybe time to just switch it for a bit and see how we got on, you know, or just play boss, that solves everything. That's it, there are my three things from today. Check out the Instamatiac and it's me and Ped have done. Don't forget Pedal have done player ratings, it should be an interest and watch that one. The final word will be there Monday, I'm not on it Monday, I'm not sure who's joining Ped on Monday. And look out for the rest of the videos, if you haven't subscribed, please do so when it takes a second. If you want more videos, join us on Patreon, enjoy the rest of your weekend. See you later on Toffee TV.


It is great to see so many people out today as we celebrate the expansion of the Capstone College of Nursing here at the University of Alabama. What we're looking at is an almost 50 percent more square footage that we're adding to this building. The students will have the reaction that I've seen so many times that is they'll walk in and say, is this for us? And the answer is yes. This is for our students. It's for our faculty. It's preparing that next generation of people who are going to take care of all of our health care needs. Professional nurses are desperately needed here in Tuscaloosa throughout the state and throughout the country. And so we are excited to be able to make an impact on our current health care situation. This expansion will not only help us accommodate more students but it will help us to recruit the best faculty. We have expanded classrooms, expanded research spaces, expanded offices and finally have a place to eat and so many things that will help us to be a draw not only to students but to great faculty. We often think of the University of Alabama as a place where legends are made but the pandemic has really made us think about our physicians and nurses who are on the front line of health care these days. I'd like to think of this place as a place where our health care heroes of tomorrow are going to be trained and educated.


I'm about to show you the easiest, cheesiest potato soup you ever had in 20 minutes.


Next to Lee we've got Matt Darling, he is the vice president of Ideas42 and Ideas42, we're in partnership with Ideas42 and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, we want to thank you very much. This whole project off the ground, so Matt's going to be talking about some of the research that they've been doing, really looking at work-life conflict and overwork and the impact on health. Really looking through the fascinating lens of behavioral science, really for using human psychology to try to understand what drives that overwork individually at the team and organizational level and also culturally. And then what can we do about it? So looking forward to that. And next to Matt we've got Barbara Wankoff, who is just an absolute expert in this field. I'm delighted that she's here, I'm delighted that you all are here. Barbara is the executive director of diversity and inclusion at KPMG and has been working on these issues for quite some time. And then finally we've got Serita Gupta, she is the executive director of Jobs with Justice and also the co-director of Caring Across Generations. So we're going to start, let me start with Lee. So the title of the show is Your Work May Be Killing You. And I actually have to say I sort of stole that from Jeff Feffer. He's a professor at Stanford and he's actually working on a book called Your Paycheck May Be Killing You. So I sort of changed it a little bit. But he and his research partners have done some really interesting looking at 228 different studies looking at work culture and health. And what they've found is that a combination of erratic schedules and uncertainty for low wage workers and long work hours and sort of telepressure and always feeling like you have to be on and vigilance for knowledge workers. Making us sick that the workplace itself is now the fifth leading cause of death in the United States responsible for 120,000 excess deaths a year with healthcare costs that rival diabetes. So what I want to know is why aren't we talking about this more? So Lee, give us an overview. You looked at the healthy workplace. It doesn't seem like it's that healthy. What's going on? Well, just a little context. A couple of years ago, around about the time that I met you, Bridget, I was going through a bit of a crisis. I work for an architecture firm and it was a really, really stressful time. And the first time in my life I've always been able to rally when times get tough. I hit a wall. So we're going on huge projects, 80 hours a week for weeks and weeks and weeks on end. And we all got there every once in a while. And in my case, my family was not so happy with me and my friends, all of that. And started this journey where I was really said, there's got to be a better way. Got to be a better way to work. And so I interviewed paleoanthropologist and I kind of went way, way back. I decided rather than look at work just the last 100 years, let's go way, way back and really understand how our health is so impacted.  We have food. We have grocery stores. Like why is it so difficult? Why is our life so difficult? And so it was just looking maybe two million years back is that a lot of our time was spent hunting and gathering and as you might expect. But when I talked to these paleoanthropologists, they said that we actually were walking eight or nine miles a day. We were moving constantly. Of course, you're always being chased by a saber-toothed tiger and all these sorts of things. But we really were moving and our diet obviously evolved quite a bit. But fast forward to the farming, you know, when we all kind of cities were evolved like maybe 10,000 years ago. It happened all over the world around the same time due to global warming and lots of reasons. But we were still, even when we were farmers, we were moving around quite a bit. And if you look at subsistence farming, a lot of Amish farmers today and things like that, they're still moving eight, seven, eight miles a day and eating fairly nutritious meals. And then, you know, kind of the industrial revolution hits. We move inside. The physical workplace itself gets pretty horrible. As we all know, we're working crazy hours. Time shifted quite a bit and a very, very kind of stressful environment. There was this great story I heard in Manchester where people, it was so awful that there was this thing called gen carts. And people would be given gen or could buy gen on the street. They'd even buy it on the factory floor. So we spent most of our time intoxicated while working, which, you know, maybe that's good. I don't know, now we have, we're not intoxicated. Now we have coffee. It's so much better. And so there's that. And so this kind of slow gradual evolution. And I think now we're in a position where a lot of us are very addicted to our devices. We're working much more than those 40 hours that we all work so hard to reduce the work week down into, and we're giving away a lot of extra hours, are not paid, something like 30 extra plus hours a week, working desperately in grocery stores or in our pillows, you know, on our iPhones, whatever the case may be. And it's caused not only physical issues, most skill of skeletal issues with our working and the fact that we're not moving very much. We're not getting in our 150 minutes a week, which the American Medical Association requires. How many of you guys work out 150 minutes a week? That's like five times 30 minutes a week. Okay, so that was maybe like 30% of you. Okay, you represent the population. That's great. So what does this mean? Well, obviously there are all kinds of issues with obesity and being overweight. Two thirds of our country is overweight. It's a huge issue. And it's causing all these chronic issues and diseases. And it's also, we're really stressed out. There's this heart, mind, you know, health condition or connection. And so we're spending a lot of our time really stressed, and we have all kinds of issues physically with absenteeism, but also with presenteeism, which is going to work and kind of not really being into it, which is causing, you know, something like $500 million a year to lost profitability in organizations. And there's also this interesting rift I've been noticing in the last few years, which is there are people who are employed, luckily, and working, and their employer is not willing to maybe hire another person to fill that position, right? So we're continuing to hold on to the jobs we have. We're talking about this earlier. And then there's a whole swath of the population that is desperate to be working, period, to be working any sort of hours. And so there's a systemic issue, I think, that we're wrestling with. But at the end of the day, I think there are some lights of hope, and we can talk about those during our discussion today. But I think a lot of it starts with leaders who recognize it in themselves. You mentioned the Human Performance Institute. I spent some time with, how many of you guys have heard of HPI? So the Human Performance Institute trains athletes to improve their performance and better their game. They train Olympians and all kinds of elite athletes. And over 30 years, they've been training them to really manage their energy over time. Over the course of a day and between matches, it's all about managing energy. That is the difference between the A and the A plus players. So now they're training corporate America, and they're specifically training leaders in corporate America to help manage their energy and recognize there's a life outside of work that life and work overlap and feed each other. So it's a pretty exciting time, I think, as we build that realization, but it starts a lot with leadership. Well, thanks so much, Lee. What I'd like to do is, if I could turn to you, I mean, one of the things that really strikes me, you talk about presenteeism. And if you look at, say, Gallup, they do this general poll pretty much every year of employee engagement. And something like over 70% of American workers are disengaged at work. And yet we put in these really long hours, if you look internationally, we work longer hours than about any other advanced economy except for Japan and South Korea.  So speaking of, at this point, let me turn to you. I mean, you worked in Wall Street in that investment banking environment where those kind of long hours are sort of seen as this badge of honor or almost like boot camp that you have to get through. Can you talk about what that was like? And I think the most important question that I want to ask is, do you really have to work that way in order to do good work? No, you don't have to work that way to do good work. I think that's obvious. But there's certain industries we probably can't fix. And Wall Street's one of them. Because when you come in young, you opt in to that career, you get a lot of money, you're working on a deal that's someone's life changing event and they're paying you millions of dollars to work on it. I'm sorry, they're paying you millions of dollars to work on it and they want you to be available. If they want to talk on a Saturday night, you're going to be available to talk on a Saturday night. But what I found jarring is actually when I left that and I came to tech and the attitude is still the same and it's not billions of dollars. And it's not as critical and I mean even banking isn't critical. It's not medicine, it's not. You're not saving lives. So you don't have to work this way. But the flip side I'll bring up is it's not the hours that get to you, it's the unpredictability that gets to you. If you know you'd have to work 15 hours a day every day, you'll probably get used to it over time and you'll find your zone of happiness and you'll make your schedule around it. What I hated in banking was you'd sit down at dinner with my wife on Friday night and you'd get an email and you'd be at this fancy restaurant and you'd be like, okay, I gotta go. Or you'd get on a plane and you'd cancel your trip, you'd fly back the next day and you'd cancel your vacation. And I think when the big banks, they started two years ago, they started thinking about how do we deal with work-life balance. The first thing they did was they said, let's reduce the hours and they realized that morale didn't go up at all. But then they started giving you protected time off. So you still work long hours but they guaranteed you every second Saturday you could make plans. And morale went up. How about every Saturday? Every second Saturday. What happened to the weekend? But it's a trade-off. Even within Wall Street, it's a small group of people that opt into it. You do it for three or four years and hopefully it gets better. The problem is after three or four years, nobody tells you, you can stop doing this now and you've got to start drawing your own boundaries. Barbara, I'd like to bring you into this at this point. One of the points that you made earlier when we were talking was that sometimes, especially when it comes to knowledge work, people are really passionate about what they do and maybe they weren't passionate about the deal but it was sort of that kind of all-encompassing, exciting environment or we're really passionate. How do you set boundaries so that you don't go from passion to burnout? Well, some similar challenges in the professional services firm as in banking. But a few really key differences and we do have people who we say they have opted into this and they know that it's going to be hard work. It's client service delivery. So again, clients says jump, we say how high. But our engagement scores are through the roof actually and we two years ago set out on something that we call to talk about purpose and we really helped our employees from a very grassroots and leadership standpoint. So bottom up, top down is help people recognize why they're doing the work they're doing. And we told some stories of KPMG's history and the things that we've been involved in really world-changing events over time in our long history and then we challenged our employees to tell us why they were working so that they weren't just doing an audit of a healthcare company but they were finding extra money that the healthcare company could dedicate to cancer research. So they would tell us that they're helping to solve cure cancer. It framed their work in a completely different way. Now we set out a challenge to our employees and said if we could get 10,000 stories in a three month period of time and at that point in time we had about 24,000 employees. So we were asking for one story per person from less than half of our population. But we set out a challenge that if we could get 10,000 stories in three months we would give extra days off over the Christmas holiday period. Well, in less than a month we had 10,000 stories and we announced that congratulations, you'll get extra time off and we proceeded to get an additional 35,000 stories from our employees. This resonated so much and it gave people that purpose to do the work they're doing. So all in all now you want to do the work, you believe in it and you tend to put in a lot of extra effort and a lot of extra hours. How do you find that balance of doing important work that you believe in and you want to excel at to not being sidelined and not doing meaningful work? And where's that sweet spot? And I do think it is a lot about self-regulation and I also think that it is about leadership and being sure that our leaders understand the importance of that time to recharge which is why that we shut down over the holiday break so that there's no work happening.  You get 10 or 12 days where there's no email traffic, there's no expectation to be online and you do get that. I would love to say we could do that every weekend but we're not quite there yet but I think that there's recognition and discussion of the benefit that we see in our employees to giving them at least some time to really recharge. Small steps. And the challenges that we make but is there something when you're looking at the workplace and the work context, is it only self-regulation? Is it also looking at systems and structures and what can behavioral science help us understand in terms of both the problem and the solutions here? Speaking of getting depleted, it's interesting. I work at Ideas for Two, which is a behavioral design firm. We're a non-profit. I think it's a great place to work. I think it's a place where we have a lot of flexibility, a lot of ability to set our own hours. I'll break my colleagues here in the New York office because I'm in the Boston office where there's only six of us and no one even knows if I come in so maybe I don't. What's funny about this is you think about this from that perspective. The systems are in place, the leadership that's bought in and everyone thinks that work-life balance is important, especially on the work-life balance team. What's fascinating is I still think my work-life balance is pretty bad. I think all the structures and leadership and a lot of these impediments that we're really worried about are really bad and my work-life balance is great and part of it is because I value my work. I think it's important. I like doing it. But also, and I think this is where the behavioral science comes in, is because there's a lot of ways that I make mistakes in how I prioritize or how I self-regulate. You think about how do I set the work that I want to do? I like the part of my work that I'm doing, the fun creative side of it, but that doesn't mean that I don't have to go and spend afternoon every once in a while figuring out where my invoices are going and where they're supposed to go and what the actual charges are. What's always interesting is I kind of put that off. I start out and say, hey, here's the creative work and then I say, okay, now I need to do the invoices. But really I should go and answer this other email and maybe I should reorganize my whole email system because I just don't really want to do those invoices and I procrastinate, procrastinate, procrastinate on that and I'm like, oh wait, I really should get paid for some of my work sometimes. So one thing that we've been thinking about a lot is these sorts of ways that are how we procrastinate, how we forget, all these sort of funny little quirks of how people make decisions, how people take action and how that really interacts with workplace design and how we work things out. And I'm thinking about almost like the Robert... mending wall poem of good fences make good neighbors and then the neighbor comes and says, okay, but that's only when there are cows, right? If cows aren't going to go and eat your grass, it's fine. And a lot of the ways we workplace is structured sometimes is saying, aha, you know, keep an eye on your workers, they're going to go and try and slack off and they're going to try and get as much as they can. And a lot of times it's not the case. A lot of times we're the ones who are driving ourselves, we're the ones that are motivating ourselves and when you put in these structures, it removes that motivation, going back to your point about people being disengaged or people being uncomfortable. So I think thinking about how these sorts of weird things about how people act changes, and I think one thing that's really clear to me is that even just not... it's not about knowing it. I've realized these things about myself, I've realized these mistakes that I make, but how can we change the structure of how we're organized in order to make it better? And I would love to say I have a good answer to that. We're working on that right now. We've got some ideas. I think everyone has the wonderful part toolkit that's registered in my colleague, Stanley Wihon, I've put together. And I think these are good ideas, but I think the question is, do they work? And that's the thing that we're going to hope to find out. You know, it's interesting. Sarita, let me bring you in, because one of the things Matt was talking about was that sense of self-will or whatever. But what if you're a low-wage worker and you are completely at the mercy of your bosses, the organization, and just like Matt was saying, a lot of the structures are set up because there isn't a sense of trust, or we're going to watch you, or we think you're going to try to get away with something so almost very punitive. Can you talk more about what a low-wage worker or an hourly worker might feel, what the situation is for them, and how does that impact health? Have you looked at what that experience is like? Yeah, thank you. Well, work is stressful, as we know, and this conversation is absolutely credentialing that it's a public health crisis, really. And the truth is that the intensity of stress that's faced by workers who work in the low-age sectors of our economy is incredibly intense, and it's not talked about, but it's so stressful, and the health implications, both physical and mental health implications, are enormous. So the best way... I would love to just share a story of a woman named Janelle. She's a home care worker, and she's a warehouse worker, and I'm actually going to quote her. This is pretty much how my day goes. I get up, and I get my daughter to school by 8 a.m. I'm at my first job by 9 a.m. I get off at 1 p.m. I take a nap before I pick up my daughter at 5.30 p.m. We do dinner and homework. I try to take another nap. Then I go to work at my second job at 10 p.m. in a warehouse because I'm not getting the hours with home care, and if I do get the hours, it's still not enough money. I make it home by 7 a.m. and start over. Some days, I'm going off of three or four hours of sleep. On Saturday, sometimes I get to sleep late, and sometimes I'll get up and try to go do a movie with my daughter, but if I do that, a bill doesn't get paid. That is the reality that growing numbers of working women and men in our economy are facing right now, and I say that because a man is functioning on three or four hours of sleep every day over time what that does to your physical and mental health. So it's really pretty profound, and what we've found in our work is that it doesn't have to be this way. So we've looked a lot at the retail and restaurant sector, for example, which are two growing sectors of our economy, and what we've found is for restaurant or retail workers, the chaotic schedules and unpredictable schedules coupled with the lack of enough hours of work, coupled with the low wages is tremendously stressful. So today in the retail sector, a lot of employers are going towards what we call having workers on call, right? And in demanding that people have open availability, which means essentially you call, in some cases you call in the morning and hope you have a job that day and you have some hours of work or you're just on call until the employer calls you and you're expected to be on call and open and available full-time even though the work you'll be asked to come in for is just part-time, which then if you think that through for a second, how does somebody hold a second job or a third job, because they're not actually being given the flexibility or told here are some hours within which you're going to work. So so many working women and men that we've talked to have said this is impossible to budget their lives, to plan their lives to take care of themselves to go to doctor's appointments, let alone if you have children or you have aging adults in your family that you care for, how you actually plan for their needs. How much email are people sending over their Christmas break? Again, like you said, we're lucky enough to have an organization that says hey, you get the 25th to the first off and email went down, it went down by about a third. You think about that, that's probably every one of us was spending maybe an hour, two, three hours a day sending out emails. No one had a deadline at that point in time. No one had pressing work. We all were off and it still was happening and it was interesting because we could actually monitor that. We're trying to think, what should we do? Should we just turn the server off and say no one gets the email for the next week? If you want to contact your team, message them on the phone, call them or something like that. On the topic of email, we have to struggle but you send out an email and somebody responds to it and you feel the need to respond and the next thing you know, on an average day you're reading and writing war and peace over and over again but the equivalent of it. In my group we came up with a simple rule, a small descent group of ours that said outside of client emails we're going to cap it at 15. Once I'm done writing 15 emails for the day, I'm done. You send out less emails, you start getting a whole lot less emails and your work product just gets better and more thoughtful. We push it the next day. I imagine there's going to be other forms of corporate disobedience that you'd have to come up with to put a stop to it. If you imagine corporate disobedience, you can imagine actually having a policy that says that, right? Or having technology that says this is how many emails you can send out, this is how many meetings you can schedule between those hard limits. I think they should just charge for email. That would stop a lot. I love that, charging for email, because I'm one of those inbox zero people and it's driving me crazy. It's driving me crazy when it's full. It drives me crazy trying to get to the zero. I wanted to ask you, so you lived in this intense work environment on Wall Street and you walked away. Did you learn lessons? I kind of want to turn the last part of our conversation towards solutions and sort of what are next steps and what's hopeful now that we've gotten ourselves all depressed about email and being buried in information technology. I had an opportunity to create a company then on your own. What were some of the lessons that you learned or what were some of the things that you really wanted to try to avoid or really create intentionally to sort of do better work and maybe have time for some life? So I think there are three lessons that I learned. The first was old habits die hard because my first company, I started with a fellow banker and we both brought all our bad habits to the startup world and it was as intense and as awful and then we had to put a circuit breaker on that and I'm very fortunate that I have a co-founder from a very different background and you know it brings perspective. The second lesson was one of remote work and I think we have an opportunity today just to use technology to enable us the same way technology enslaves us and remote work does that. I have a team that is largely remote and what it means is that I can't police their time and they are free to work when they are available to work and it creates this I'd argue, assemblance of balance that is hard to do in a corporate environment and the third thing is actually relating to the work we do ourselves and what Tapwich does is we write, we build tools to help companies write better job descriptions that are more inclusive and we have made the decision that they want to be more friendly from a work-life balance perspective they still articulate all of their culture and their jobs and how they relate to each other in vocabulary that reflects the stress of constant work so they will write we want aggressively available people we want people to be self-reliant we want people to the way they describe their job is less about engagement we want to talk about earlier and more about what you will do the way they describe works is more about we have food all the time we have beer on the tap we have boozeball instead of talking about we have parental lead benefits and we have health benefits we are family friendly and those are some of the things that I've learned I want to say that and not to be a downer again but those have to be personal and not over promised so I think that one of the things that lessons learned over time is to set the right expectations and when we fail to do that and people's expectations are not met is when we have the most discontent so you say you are going to have all of these benefits and all of this time off and then reality doesn't it goes to that predictability control I know what I'm getting into I'm buying into that little bit so Barbara to go back to you've been responsible for really changing culture of a pretty culture that was pretty set and set in its ways how do you go about doing that and where are you trying to push forward right now well I think that you do have to think about this as a change exercise really and look at all the best change management so that it's not anyone's solution we're very fortunate that we have some great leaders who recognize this and recognize it as a business imperative whether it's the ability to attract and retain the talent we need to serve our clients we find that the most innovative solutions come out of those business needs so you have a partner who has a client and they need to serve that client and they want to retain those people they won't do anything and everything bend over backwards for those employees flexibility, remote work reduced work schedules because they believe in those people and they want to retain them so you find those examples you can make it work and we promote those all over the place we hold those up as best practices and then I think that there is a real need to get some grassroots energy around this and dispel the fears dispel the fear of penalty of asking for what you need and so that it should come from the bottom up as well I do think that you find those pockets where it can work and you hope it spreads over time starting pilots almost experiments and then taking it from there and we have some leaders who are going to be bold and so we go to them and say try this let's do an experiment and then do you find that people then say hey what are they doing or can I try that have you found in your experience that that actually does spread sort of like a contagion we do we have a pretty competitive environment so somebody sees something and then somebody else says wait I want to do it and I want to do it even better so that's the plus side of that in our audit practice several years ago we started a program called what we call team of choice and teams that work together over a long period of time get together and right up front they do a lot of planning what's important to you what's coming up over the next three months you know you want to run a marathon you need to have time for your training you your sister's getting married you want time off for that you want to have dinner with your child a couple times a week you know okay and so you get it all on the table and you do some planning and that's been very successful in our audit practice which is a little bit more stable in terms of the engagements when we looked at our advisory or consulting practice where teams are forming for short periods of time and then moving on it was harder and just recently our advisory practice said alright that's it we're going to figure this out we're going to do team of choice our way that's going to work so they're in an experiment right now to figure out how teams that come together for a couple of days or a week at a time can create the environment where people get what they need so you know Matt one of the things that struck me in reading the report and hopefully you guys will all have a link to the ideas 42 report which is great great reading you know one of the things that really struck me when I was talking with Dan and Weehan was one of the designs that you're looking at is really being planful if you will and planning slack for things that you can't predict and planning for your own planning fallacy recognizing that you may not you may be overestimating what you can do and underestimating how long it can take and just can you talk about how important planning is you know both individually and organizationally as sort of thinking about kind of redesigning work and moving into the next step I think one of the interesting things about life is that unexpected stuff happens all the time and it's kind of funny because we should expect it right like every so you know I work on a lot of our work is grant supported and so every once in a while be like oh here's this wonderful grant that I need to apply for because it's so perfect for us and I need to sort of schedule 10 hours for me to work on it and it's funny because I never have that 10 hours ready but this still happens to me like once a month right this still happens to me that I and there's this level where I should always know that it's coming down


This study reveals that wind stilling has been observed in many regions across the northern hemisphere, but the related mechanisms are not well understood. Analysis of wind speed variations in South Korea during 1993 to 2015 show that annual mean surface wind speeds at rural stations have increased by up to 0.41ms-1 decade-1, while those at urban stations have decreased by up to minus 0.63ms-1 decade-1. The local wind speed variations are found to be negatively correlated with population density, and dustiness analyses show that the increase in local surface roughness due to urbanization can explain the observed negative wind speed trends at urban stations. However, these trends are not found in regional climate model simulations in Cordexia as these models do not take into account the impact of urbanization on wind variations during the period. The study suggests that urbanization plays an important role in recent wind stilling in rapidly developing regions such as South Korea, and future climate projections in Cordexia may overestimate wind speeds in urban areas, requiring future regional climate projections to consider the effects of urbanization for a more accurate projection of wind speeds. This article was authored by Xing Chen, Su Zhong Zhong, Vun Yang Park, and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


But it's worth mentioning here as well, of course, that Hinduism is seen as such a pacifistic, peaceful religion within the West. Nobody associates war with Hinduism, but on the other hand here you can clearly see, of course, that there was warfare within Hinduism as well. There was warfare in Christianity. There is warfare within Buddhism. Every religion has warfare, obviously. And even secularists have warfare. If you look into the military complex, you will see a secularist organization that commits atrocities. They go to war. This is what humans do. And therefore to claim that Islam is this also evil, war-mongering religion is yet again hypocritical.