 in a given community and the growth somehow measured that we can expect. I have no doubt that we will not answer that question. But we will try to scratch the surface and we will try to get into different subtopics under this heading. And of course where we go will in no small amount depend on your participation. I have some questions already in case you have no questions. But that is probably not optimal. So I'm really hoping for you to come forward and then post your questions up here. And then I'll try to structure this just a little bit. So it is a pleasure for me to welcome Tanya Ellis. Could you please come over here. And Tommy Ehlers and Jimmy Fussing Nielsen at the far right. I think I'll start from my far right and ask Jimmy just to say a few words about his background and perspective going into this debate. The reason I'm here is I'm a founder and a managing partner of the tech side of a Copenhagen based venture capital company called Sunstone Capital. I have seen some of the faces in the other room but most of you I haven't seen. I cannot recognize them all. We invest in technology and life science and I'm mostly investing in technology and backing great entrepreneurs like Tommy. And that's my cue. Nice segue into me. I'm Tommy. I'm an entrepreneur. I don't know whether I'm a great entrepreneur. But I've been so for seven years after spending a bit of time at not always invested but Copenhagen starting lower there. Then went to McKinsey for four years. And then for the last seven years I started three companies liquidated one of them and sold the other two. One to Vodafone in 2008 called SUP which was reinventing how the contact list is used on a mobile phone. And then went on after that to build another company called Podia which we sold to Citrix earlier this year. My purpose and for being here today is to get you to ask the question why not. Why should I take a job at Danskabank and make their share price go up. Why should I work for Novo. Why should I start my own company and make an impact with something I believe in something I have a true passion for and maybe become rich along the way as well. But at least work on something that truly believe in and make a difference. Thank you. Tanya. Hi I'm Tanya. And I have a business background and when I entered the labor market 22 years ago we had to make a choice. Whether we wanted to make money or whether we wanted to do good. And by coincidence I ended up in the private sector working in different management positions in the airline and advertising industry. And when I completed my executive MBA I wrote a dissertation on the changing values in society and how this will impact the leadership roles and the way that we conduct business. And that is really how I became an entrepreneur by coincidence because this was the point where I realized that the rules of business are changing. So I quit my job and I started my own company the social business company and I've run this company for almost 10 years now. And the purpose of our company is to give inspiration and to guide companies as well as entrepreneurs in how they can develop solutions. Sustainable solutions that generate both economic and social value. So I'm very much focused on the concept of social entrepreneurship and sustainable growth. So that's my angle into this. Okay. Thank you. So I think I'll sort of allow myself the first question and then I'll get into the list which is already back of you. So given your experiences and your different backgrounds is there in your estimation sort of an entrepreneurship deficiency in this country that we should really worry about compared to some of the other high income countries that we would like to sort of compete with and hopefully stay at level with or even out compete? Is there a big problem in this country? And if so, how can you maybe diagnose it? Any takers? Yeah, there's a fucking big problem here because you know the success I define success as if you can get much this much out of this little talent. That's what I've done. And but it's the opposite here in Denmark. We get this little out of this much talent because we have our education sector even though we would love to bash it in the public debate. It's a very, very well-functioned educational sector we have. And we have people that are prepared to work and work hard even though it says up there that some people might not want to. Most of us want to work hard but we're not doing it for the right things. We don't create enough. We're not creative enough and we're not entrepreneurial enough. So I think because of that reason, there's a big gap and compared to some other countries that might have a lower talent mass, maybe that much but we should get much more out of the talent mass we have in Denmark. And sorry for swearing. Any comments? Well, I think it's a matter of risk willingness. And on average, I think the risk willingness of Danes as compared to people that live maybe in the United States or certain parts of the United States is just much smaller. And I don't see what it is that we are afraid of because we do great when we actually get our if act together and take the risk and, you know, what's the worst thing that can happen? Let it fail. What then? You try again. I mean everybody that starts up will fail. That's just a sign that you try it right? So you just get going and be more risk willing and don't take the, you know, boring steady job where you count rows at the vertex or whatever it is that you do. Well, I guess that's the dark side of our welfare system that it has made us lazy and uncreative. In a sense, I think what's happening right now, this whole, this key question that we're asking ourselves at the moment, what should Denmark live off? And the levels of the rising levels of unemployment are forcing us to be creative of forcing us to think in new ways. And instead of asking yourselves, you know, where could I find a job? And how could I get employment? Maybe we need to start asking questions like what kind of company would I like to work for? And why not create it myself? So here's at least elements of the diagnosis, I guess. So let's blame it on the welfare state. No, you know, this is the society is not creating us. We are the society. And if we believe that we can blame it on the welfare state that we're not inferno enough, then we'll never change this. So it starts with you, you're looking at your career, you're looking at some choices. And you need to change that. You need to change the trajectory of Denmark. We're too old to do that. That's true. I'm not, but... And I'm not blaming the welfare state. I think there's also an element of culture here, because Jimmy, you were talking about, you know, the willingness to take a risk. And I think that the culture for many years here, talking about entrepreneurship has been, that if you fail, then, you know, you're not good enough. And I think this culture is changing now that, in fact, if you do fail, it's a kind of endorsement that, hey, now you're getting to learn what it means to run a company and to be an entrepreneur. So I think there's also a cultural shift that's going on. Hopefully, it's going on. Okay, so low risk tolerance is a problem. We could dismantle a certain system, maybe over the long haul, increase risk tolerance. In your experience, are there other sort of systemic problems? Because you could think of this as, I don't know, a long-grown systemic problem. So, for instance, in order to be entrepreneurial, I guess there has to be a certain willingness of some people to enter cash into this system. So the funding side of things, are there systemic problems there? When you have ideas, there are ideas out there? There are no shortage of ideas, presumably. So is there other systemic problems than this broad welfare is to blame everything? There's money. For the great ideas, there's money. It will always be like that. I think what you have seen over the last years is that the funding availability had reduced after the 2008 crisis. I mean, in the other room, I showed that it's approximately a quarter of what it was three, four years ago, the fundraising for venture capital, which is at least one of the backers. I think also business angels have lost money and so on. So there's less funding, which means that you need to stand more out. But I mean, taking risk and systemic, I mean, the last 10,000 years we have learned to be fearful. So it's pretty systemic, I would say. But I think we need to look at it with the backing and so on. We have good educations that we have and so on. There's not much risk, actually. Just don't upgrade that bloody department. Wait a couple of years and take some risk instead of buying another apartment and debt yourselves too early. Okay, so let's actually take one of the questions, which are up there. So given this, what is then your best advice to a rookie entrepreneur? Once you have the idea, I think a key question is, who can help me with this? It's really to look at the resources that you surround yourself with, whether it's material or people you'd like to know. But that's the key question, who can help me grow this idea and who can help me put this vision into action? Tommy, where did you go? I think the best advice is just do it. And it sounds very, very simple, but of course it is around finding the people, but there's so many, you know them when you work on an assignment, there are some people in your group that will talk and talk and talk and talk and they don't get to the core of it. They don't get to actually start solving the issue. They talk about how to solve the issue, not solving it. And that's what entrepreneurship is about, just do it. Just get started. Get started with something. You're building the first prototype. You're kind of programmed. Hey, build it in PowerPoint then. And then get it out there and then see how people react to it instead of just thinking that I have this missing link or I haven't found the team yet and therefore I can't start talking to people around it or I'm afraid of something. So just get started on, if you have the idea, then just start with something. Everyone can do that. So are there particular traits you must have as an entrepreneur? Something you can sort of identify out there? So I can even select out of becoming an entrepreneur if I realize I don't have those. So everyone can be an entrepreneur. Not everyone needs to build the next Facebook, but everyone can be an entrepreneur. You can cut hair, you can lay bricks, or you can build internet companies or start a flower shop. Everyone can become an entrepreneur or be an entrepreneur and it's actually quite easy. So there's not special traits, but what I'm looking at also when I invest in companies or when I'm building companies is that in the founding team there are kind of three, so talk a bit to the team, there are kind of three D's. There's a designer, both visually designing something but also from a conceptual point of view, you can think the concept, what is the product you want to put into the market. Then there's a distributor, someone that can sell it, put it into market, do the marketing plan, what have you. And then there's the developer, if we talk about IT companies, that can code it. If you have these three, sometimes it takes two people to cover the three D's. Sometimes it takes five people, but that's kind of what you want to look for. So when you look at your trade, many of you might be either designers or distributors. You're not developers, but you can then start designing it. You kind of really start distributing it yet, but you can actually start designing it or start talking about it and then you need to find these two other D's. That's how I would think about it when you look at what can I do and what am I looking for in terms of get this off the ground. Yeah, and I think you hit the nail on its head with the thinking and doing because I think that's what distinguishes an entrepreneurial company and an established company, that in the established company you think first and then you do, and in an entrepreneurial company you do first and then you think later. We have a business partner in Singapore and I think the spirit in that region of the world is extremely entrepreneurial right now. And his motto, he says, when we were discussing how should we approach this market, he always says, Tanya, you think too much. You know what, my motto is three things. It's action, action and action. Okay, so let's try to move a little bit forward. So clearly there will be questions up there relating to, well, the possible systemic changes that might have an effect. So off the top of your head, you know, if a government were allowed to sort of dispense with a budget constraint for an afternoon or two and be wild, what could a government do that would matter to bring forward more entrepreneurship? I think that the government have done some things. They have actually put a lot of money into this area where most others, like the private sector, hesitate. If you look both at Denmark and if you look at Europe by and large, the governments are the single biggest source of funding to entrepreneurship in Europe at this point in time. So I don't think we should look too much towards the governments for what they should do. I think it's more a matter of what we and you should be doing. That's where it starts. I think there is funding. They have done things, as always, things that they can do better. Everybody wants a lower tax rate and all these good things, right? But that's reallocation of money, not really creating stuff. I think they have done a number of things. I'm sure they can do a lot more, but for me that's really not what it's about. So you don't see a need for, for instance, a rebalancing of what the government is actually doing. For instance, from my perspective as someone from academia, of course, there seems to be more and more money pouring into sort of large-scale things rather than smaller-scale things. That certainly applies to research funding. I imagine some of the more publicized initiatives vis-à-vis innovation entrepreneurship seems to have problems with the smaller actors, or maybe that's just my wrong impression. You need some base education. You need some research and stuff to get it going, right? Where you foster the ideas. But to generate business out of that, that's up to private initiative at the end of the day. Of course, you need a strong foundation on which you can base it, and that's where probably most of the funding should go. And then private initiative, meaning most of the people sitting in this room, should grasp that opportunity and assume that risk and get it done. This is more on the level of thought experiments, but what if the government fired 20% of the people working in the public sector and cut off social welfare for one year? It will be back, it will rehire you, but just for one year, do that. Amazing things might happen. That's one thing. Another thing they might want to do is kind of put the man on the moon, go out with a giant project and say, we want to have sustainable energy for all of Denmark five years from now. Not 2013, sorry, 2030, but five years from now, one and a half sustainable energy, all of Denmark fully supplied by sustainable energy. That would just create a massive level of information, say there's money enough and there's people enough to do it, you just go and figure it out. That would just create something. It might not happen and then we can put solar panels at all of feet. That was a cheap one when I'm also from Jotland. And then I think a more specific one that I would like to talk about systemic, because I think there's a systemic challenge, and that is also not only you should be entrepreneurs, but many of you should also go and work for startups, for new companies. And I see that issue with building companies that we don't always find enough talent. We can definitely find you guys in terms of fresh out of university. You actually have quite a good appetite, but fast forward your career five years, you've made good progress in your career in Norway, or Denmark, or Bangor, or McKinsey or whatever. Then I want to hire you into my startup. I cannot pay the same level of salary. I promise you some share options in my company. But you have now created a private economy. You have two kids, you have a wife, you bought a car that's a bit too expensive compared to your salary right now, and the same with the house. You do not have the flexibility in your economy to then take that bit of that company and work for that for the next two years, so you will not pick up the phone when I call you and come and join my company. And that's the issue because there we create too few big companies because we cannot get the mid-thirties experienced people to work for startups because they need to continue to work for these big companies because they can pay the salary. So something the government might want to do, and everyone will say it's impossible, but let's try to do something around having tax credits for going work for a startup. Instead of saying that that would be a big issue, let's try that and see if that could give people, actually they could keep the same money paid out, but they could then work for a startup for a couple of years. I know every company wants to leave themselves as a startup then, but it might be possible because that's a bit what they do in the US. They don't have tax credit, but they have savings because they know that they have to pay for some of their own medical expenses and they know they have to pay for their kids' education. And sometimes they can use that to give them a bit of a buffer in their private economy and take that bit. So in the US, if you look at people, they go in and out of these big companies and then go for a startup and then go back and work for IBM. So if we can carry that flexibility in the Danish kind of job market, I think that could change the things as well. So is the any systemic attitude to failure a problem here? That is a systemic problem. It's the other side of the risk-willingness, right? So I think that the point that Tommy is making that you get too comfy, right? So you have the houses and cars and all the good material things and when you have it, it's so difficult to give it up again. And startups don't pay the same rates. So that's why you need to get it done exactly coming out of school or beginning. That's why I say don't go for that indebtedness to begin with. Leverage was your parents. Deliverage was you guys. That's how it is. Okay, so at some point I have to move us into the university. No, but just look at the questions. Now, since we are in the university, we're often asked, can a university contribute? Is there such a thing as formalized training in entrepreneurship even possible? I guess you sort of hinted at. So maybe you can go first. Did I hint at that? That might not be possible. No, I don't think there's a formalized education for that. I think it's a choice that you have to make. I think you are educated to become entrepreneurs. Right now you are educated to become entrepreneurs. And it's a bit just facing the fact that you need to take a bit of a risk and you cannot just take the paved road in every choice you're making. So don't wait for that formalized training and then everything will come to you. Then the first failure where you don't hire the right guys then you know what to look for next time and all of that. So the doing creates the learning curve. So once you start doing that, then you will see an extremely steep learning curve and that is the formalized training. But if you want, not formalized training, but if you want training on the job, then again encourage you to then go out. There's a lot of startups that are looking for people like you to join them and not go and work for what's the natural choice to work for common oil money if I studied law or go to work for one of the government institutions. But go and work for a startup instead. That's a lot of training in that. Then later you can do your own company. Well, we've been talking today about sustainable business models. And if you want to create a sustainable business model then you have to be able to create a model that creates both economic and social growth. This means that in the educational system you need to focus on more than just the business skills. So what the educational system could do would be to provide a framework where it's possible to develop not only your business skills, but also your social skills. And we're seeing this already in different business schools around the world that they're sending out their students on discovery expeditions to emerging markets, for example, or developing countries. So they get a sense of what are the issues here, what are the needs, what are some of the societal problems that we haven't found solutions to yet. So that's one way of building in both a social consciousness and a vehicle to develop your social skills and also to look at how could we develop a solution that could also be financially feasible. Volunteering could be another way of opening up the educational system to society. So why not create a program where students could go out, do volunteering for an NGO, for example, to again get a sense of what are the issues out there in society and how could we utilize our business skills in ways that could develop solutions to some of these issues, some of these needs that we still haven't found answers to. But isn't that slightly different from training entrepreneurialism? Isn't this sort of taking us back to the good old days when upper middle class British people were sending a tour of the world to learn things and etc., which of course makes sense, but is that the same thing as I think what I was talking about? I don't think so. It's a different thing. I think my point is that you need to open up to the world and you need to go out into the world. And this is not a new imperialistic way of thinking is to go out and learn and actually listen to what are the issues out there so you get a sense of reality. Because I think that's what happens in many cases is that when you get out of the educational system, you get this reality shock because things aren't, as you read about in the textbook, so getting that reality check throughout your time in the educational system could make you more ready to take some of the risks that you need to take and could actually give you some ideas to new companies that need to be brought out there. Having an education does not reduce the probability of having entrepreneurial success. It's a good starting point from skills. After skills, you need experience. And when you have experience, and maybe even before you have it, you need to have passion because nobody today, not a big company or a small company, want to work with something without a cause. At the end of the day, you should choose something where you have passion. Passion leads to great results, great entrepreneurship and a better society, I think. So skills is the foundation of that. There are linear relationship between things. Is there a monotone relationship? I have a little doubt you're right. Of course, there has to be a certain base of something to stand on. But I guess one of the problems we could discuss in the university is are there decreasing returns in terms of entrepreneurial prowess or might there even be a non-monotonic relationship between your sort of prowess for becoming an entrepreneur and the length of your education, for instance? Any comments? I don't think you have the data set to give a straight answer on that, but I think you have equally good successes of people that never finalized their education. Big successes. And you have equally big successes of people that have a great education and great background, PhDs, you know? So I think that's definitely room for both. I think where you can see a clear correlation is the people and that goes for sport or music or art or business. Those who want it most will be successful. That's the correlation. That's probably the single clearest point of correlation. Of course, it comes from a base of talent, right? If you don't have any legs, you cannot become a football player, right? That goes without saying. But it's more important to have the will because all of you are quite talented, right? So it's the will that sets you apart from the competition. You can actually get into a running competition in the Olympics without one leg. True innovation. But isn't that analogy with sports and artistry all wrong? Isn't that sort of a specialist where you train and train and train and train and train? Of course, you have to train more. That gives you very, very special skills and gives you an edge above the competition. But is that in any way related to entrepreneurialism? 10,000 hour rule. It's completely related, I believe. If you don't believe that, working on something and maybe... Okay, Rovio. Rovio, the company that is doing Angry Birds, right? How many titles do you think they release before they make a home run with Angry Birds? You know the answer. Is it 52 or 53? 52, I think. 52? They did 52 games that you do not know of because they only got maybe 100,000 players in each of these games. They kept on trying and trying and trying and then they did Angry Birds. That is one of the biggest successes when you talk about gaming. So it's completely related. So in other words, we need passion and we need perseverance. Hallelujah. Okay, so there are some questions. There's one for you specifically, Tommy. First one. Did your McKinsey background at all help you as an entrepreneur? Because clearly there's going to be a few of these guys up here ending up at McKinsey or in similar places, I'm sure. So was that a useful spell? Yes, it was. Very useful. In what sense? It was useful in terms of that. One thing that I learned at McKinsey was that if you really... Maybe back to the 10,000 hour rule, that's pretty much what you put in a week at McKinsey. But you know that if you put in and you try and you want to go for the last decimal and you go for, if not perfection, then something very close to it, you can actually achieve amazing result in a short amount of time. And that, you know, we don't learn that, right? We don't learn that. We should work that hard. We should, you know, work that hard for our school work on universities. That doesn't come natural for Danes, right? Because we are a bit comfy. So we don't work that hard. We're not always prepared to go for the last mile, unlike American students, Chinese students, Brazilian students, Indian students. So, and that's what you get out of McKinsey because then you're just forced to do it. You need to, you know, know everything about the pharmaceutical industry and solve their productivity issues in a matter of three months, right? And tell that to people that have been working in that industry for 20 years, right? And that's quite something. And I think that was the biggest thing for me. And then, of course, some very practical things about how you build this or how big companies are working and how it should not be working then. I want to paint a picture which gives a little bit of perspective. So I'm sitting at a hotel Marriott in Tel Aviv on the top floor where I was welcomed by the Prime Minister of the country to view and have discussions with a number of the startups out of Israel. And I'm having, I think, six an hour. So there's a lot of people coming in and out of the room. And suddenly there's a delay. And I didn't know why the last set of people were not coming. And then two soldiers with full armor and Uzi over their shoulders came to me and said, if I was Jimmy and I got all nervous. And they laid down the Uzi's on the table and they wanted to give me their 10 minute pitch before they went back on patrol at the Gaza. Now they convinced me that they could run a business and they were not afraid of much. So that's what I'm talking about. Doesn't that Israel also is a big, you know, proof of that size does not matter? Yeah. They have a good educational system too. And they spent 10X what we do here. There are 7.4 million people in Israel, right? They don't have any natural resources. And trust me, they are in a fuck place of the world, right? And they have that, I think it's 82 times as much venture capital coming into companies, into Israeli companies compared to the areas in European countries. And 32 as many as coming into you as companies. So you can actually claim that Israel is the most entrepreneurial company in the world and there are 7.4 million people with no natural resources. So they don't have anything in their culture, in the culture, but not in the DNA of resources that tells you that they should be more successful than Denmark, but they are much more successful. Attitude, attitude. There's another question suggesting that being successful as an entrepreneur is pretty much down to luck. So can we learn anything from you guys at all? Should we just leave? I don't believe that it's down to luck. I think luck plays a role. But if you spend 10,000 hours on something and get good at it, I think you have a much better chance of luck. And at the end of the day, I think it's really down to a circumstance. It can be parents, background, how you were raised and so on, which is out of the control circle of the individual. So in that sense there could be some luck. But I think at most it's down to working hard on the problem that you really want to work on and make sure that that works. So an example here from... I don't think it's about luck plays a role. I'm just repeating what Jimmy just said. So an example from when we sold to Vodafone in 2008, we went down to Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. We came with our new innovation. That was this brilliant working piece of software on the mobile phone that transforms your experience of a contact list. So you can see people before you call them and see what they were and what have you. Facebook feed and Twitter feed coming into that. We had a booth, 10 square meters, didn't pay much for it because we couldn't afford much. And then Yahoo had this giant booth, 300 square meters next to us. And Yahoo announced a product that was similar to ours, but they have been having 200 people working in it for three years. And we have had 10 people working in it for three months. What happened then was that some negotiation between Yahoo and Vodafone kind of blew up or imploded or whatever you say, around that kind of early 2008. So Vodafone was on a lookout for something I'll turn to. They saw us because we were placed by coincidence, placed next to you. We didn't pick that, so that's luck. And then we were there with our product and they saw them and then were like, but this is the answer to our prayers. That's exactly what we wanted to. And then they ended up with Vodafone buying this company with the technology, this product for 32 million euros. And that's luck played a role in that because we were placed next to that. Those negotiations broke down two weeks before. Those people were there at the right moment and what have you. But if we didn't develop that product, if we hadn't gone to that, if we hadn't raised the money to go to and pay for this, participate in this fair, it would not have happened. So just to try to put an example on what Jimmy just said, it plays a role, but you need to be out there and work extremely hard to get there. Yeah, and I would say that I don't believe in luck, but I believe in timing and synchronicity and then I believe in a whole lot of hard work because it gives you experience. So that's the reason why one of my favorite motos is that it's funny. The more that I practice the luckier I get. Are we, from the perspective of entrepreneurship, this is getting back a little bit to where I was earlier, over educating these guys or too many of these guys. So let me just give you a little bit of background. In Denmark, everyone in university minus a few percent are in university for more than five years. In pretty much any other country, we might want to compare ourselves with the fraction of students who stay on after three years is much, much, much lower, certainly in the Anglo-Saxon world. So is that a problem? Because this is something we can address politically. Or is it optimal, the system we have from the perspective of... I never thought about it like that, but I think that's a good point. I think that the longer you sit in an academic world, the more you learn to think and not to do, and the harder it is to go out and do. So I actually think that's a fair point. Bachelor down to one year and master in half a year and then we're all good. Friday bar! Cheap points, sorry. So the entire panel agrees here? Yes. And if you need a long period of education, it should at least be combined with going out in the real world, testing, I mean, that's one of the things that I really enjoyed about my executive MBA was the fact that every third month, every time we were told a topic, then we had to relate it to the company that we were working for. So that was a really great way of distinguishing between what works in theory and what doesn't. So I think that combination is really important. And because the more that we think again, we start analyzing and then we end up with analysis and paralysis that we just, you know, get paralyzed and we don't take action. We think too much. I think if what could be important is blending skills also within specific single individuals. So instead of having five years of studying law or five years of studying business, maybe you should take three years studying business and then take a computer science degree on top. Or like maybe you should blend it like they do, for instance, I think was a dystonia that every third grade student, you know, this tall, they need to learn how to program. It's mandatory. I'm not kidding. By law, like we have English or whatever, Chinese, we probably should learn Chinese instead of English. I think if you could mix it, that would be the better outcome because I think true innovation going forward will be where you mix creative with hard science, business with, you know, more soft sides of human nature and stuff like that. It could be, it's maybe a little bit too, at this university you do this and at the other university you do something else and we don't like these guys and we make jokes about them and these guys probably have higher IQ than we have and all these funny things which are pretty stupid. It's a bit the diversity, right? Diversity creates innovation. Look around you. You all look the same age. You know, it's, you know, go out there and diversify your, you know, who you know and who you talk to and so go and party at day two instead of, you know, head in school or whatever you would go, you know, meet those people and, you know, and then... Especially if you're a girl. They'll be rich one day. True. There was someone in the audience or several actually who apparently didn't buy the analysis of the effects of the welfare state and who suggested that it should go the other way around because since you're not, even if you fail, going to be left in the gutter, you should be willing to take more risk. Being a micro-economist, I can sort of, I'm sure I could write down such a model that would have those effects dominate over the other ones where... So, these are obviously economists asking those questions, I guess. So... I didn't get the question quite. You know, the whole thing is set up with... I'm an economist but I didn't get it. Starve, you know, you do not starve to death if you fail. Therefore, you know, simply you should be more willing to take risk because, you know, if you die, if you fail, then obviously, you know, that's pretty horrendous out there so you might not want to take risk initially. Your analysis is sort of the opposite. Of course, there are probably, you know, different effects here. Well, I think the US system is one where if you take risk and you succeed, you get wealthy. If you fail, it's pretty awful. I don't think that that is a good, necessarily a good way of doing things. I think, of course, we should have a welfare state to some extent. I think everybody would agree. But now it's a little bit... a little bit too much, I think. But I don't think... I think that's one question with tax rates. If you do it for the money, you will fail. Doing a sort of looking around and were you to pick an area in which to try to exert your efforts, what kind of business would you be looking towards? There are plenty of people who have asked along the 15 votes for, you know, where would you go for the next thing? Were you? That, you know, I... some of you, this will be a repetition for some of you that heard me earlier today. But there are three main areas that I think you should definitely look at. One is business software. That's what I was doing with PODIO. So basically software that helps business either do three things, right? Sell more, save money, or regulatory compliance. If you can find, you know, areas that need innovation, disruption, and one of these three areas within businesses and then deliver it as what we call software as a service, then you're onto something. There are plenty of areas because the software there, anyone that have tried to enter expenses into SAP or, you know, use Outlook for something more than writing one email a day, will find that, you know, will agree that this is, you know, the tools out there are extremely bad. So there's a bunch of things in business software. Second one is education. Why are we sitting in this room? You know, we're still, you know, we're very, very traditional in the way we think about education, that we need to be there physically, the way we interact, the way we learn. We need to be disrupted by technology. And third one is the healthcare sector. We can create more safety, better usability, which is really, really bad in the healthcare sector, and then also probably get, you know, more efficient and so get more out of our money. These are three sectors that we definitely, you know, look towards. And then I would look less to that there's a tendency to do when we talk about innovation and start-up and IT is to believe that we need to create the next app or the next social location-based music and wear photo service that will never have, you know, it will never make money because that's kind of done, that innovation has been made. Why not put the innovation where, you know, there's a completely, you know, deficit of innovation in one of these three sectors that are billion-dollar industries and not something where you need to create the market as well or the money. So, and retail. Seriously, you know, retail, that's just, you know, something I think could be quite interesting if I shouldn't do technology retail. You know, the richest man in Europe, you know, is Sarah, founder, right? You know, look at the Danish fortunes created in clothing, right? You know, it's just amazing. So there's a ton of other industries. We tend to talk a lot about technology, right? But there's a lot of other industries out there. I definitely think there's a lot to be done in different verticals. I think retail has already been, you know, there's been done a lot of things that could be the next generation of things. I mean, Peer Bank this morning really didn't believe in e-grocery. Well, I love the power of ignorance, so I think it can be done. And he told me all about what could go wrong and that's what I love, you know. He can't be right. So, and then definitely, if we really look at the more aggressive field, there is what I call disintermediation. And I think we have a lot of business students here, so disintermediation, which means that at the end of the day, the consumer trades directly with another consumer. And everything in the middle will die. Welcome to the next generation of the World Wide Web. Who's going to be your bank? Who's going to be your insurance company? Where do you buy your goods? All these things, there will be all the middlemen that takes off fat and profit in the middle? It's up for grabs. You should take that. Well, if I may add. I really think there are two perspectives to this. One is the external perspective. Building a business, running a company is about delivering a solution that accommodates to a need. So to look really broadly at it, it should be to look at where are there needs? Needs in society could also be business needs. But where are there needs that have not been fulfilled? And how could we create a solution that could accommodate to that need? So that's one aspect of it. The other aspect is all about you. Because Jimmy was talking about passion. Because if you go completely external, looking at the next new business opportunity, where's the hype, then I can guarantee, or almost guarantee that you won't succeed because you have to start asking yourself, what is it that I want to do? Where's my talent? And try to find out where your passion is. And it's so easy to say, just go where the passion is. It could be really difficult to find out where that is if you haven't been out there. So I think also you should allow yourself to experiment a bit. When you go out there and you start working, allow yourself to try out different jobs, different industries, and see what comes out of that. And maybe you'll find out where is my talent and where is my passion. And then it's really about matching that passion and talent with a solution to a need out there in the markets or in society. I think one of you said that getting people from different backgrounds together is much more likely to generate new entrepreneurs than having 17 lawyers sit in the room every day for 15 years or more. Now, that would also suggest that Denmark is losing out due to the language. Well, if you take a tour around this university, pretty much 97.5% of the undergraduate students will be Danish. So there's not much heterogeneity there. Of course, they're from different fields. So would, from the perspective of entrepreneurship and innovation over the longer haul, would it be or would it not be a good idea to simply ditch Danish language education in Danish universities? I mean, if you've been to Silicon Valley, have you seen most of the entrepreneurs that are from more than 50% originating out of Asia, India or China or whatever? They hardly speak English. They are so difficult to understand, most of them. I mean, should Danish be a problem to that? I think we speak much better English than most that I meet in California. I'm not kidding. My question is that here we speak Danish. Right now we speak English. No, to Danish. It's a global language. We speak it now. But I'm sorry, I get the question. How should that limit, if everyone had the ability to speak English and are well-trained in English, how should us speaking Danish and, you know, keep that culture intact? As a point of departure, Danish undergraduate education in Danish publicly funded universities not be exclusively English. I cannot, even if I wish to, pre that as of next academic year all the undergraduate programs, social sciences will be conducted in English only, which will obviously allow me to attract students all over the world, which I cannot do today. Okay, that sounds like we have some stupid politicians. Of course you should be allowed to do that. And we do, I think. That's a different point. Maybe we should do it in Mandarin next time. We can do that. Oh, not me, but... Not me. Okay, so I think we're getting close to 4.30. So, yes, there is a very eager question over there. So, microphone, I don't know, 20 rows up. Hi. Well, I just think it will be interesting to hear. I think entrepreneurship creates a lot of value. I've spent a lot of time promoting entrepreneurship, so this is really something I do believe. And I'm actually also an avid user of Podio. Yes. But now I'm thinking, well, so I also follow when the company was sold to an American company. And I'm thinking, what are we really going to grow from if a company like Podio, which really promises to be a big, great company, is then sold to an American company as soon as it starts really showing its potential? What is then really, what is entrepreneurship? What is the value it's creating if it's just really making some Danes really rich? Jimmy? Hey, you know... I will answer that question, then you follow up. Okay. Because I have a perspective on that one. And that is every time there has been a successful exit, we call it exit in my industry, and I would say Podio is a successful exit. It could have been bigger, but it's okay. There are a lot of things happening. A lot of people listen to Tommy. Tommy tells a great story, and it drives more passion into this crowd. So it has a multiplier effect. That's more important than the dollars. The second thing is, what do you think Tommy is doing with the money that he gets? He invests in new companies. No? Am I correct? I have a... Point taken. And I'm glad you're pointing that out, because it's so easy for me to stand here and sound extremely successful. I created so far, if you count Podio and sit together, 70 jobs. Is that something to put me on the stage for? I sold both companies and created innovation to go on the stock exchange in London or in New York. Is that something to put me on the stage for? I'm not sure. I'm here. I tell the story. Should we build more ambitious companies? And I hope that the multiplier effect Jimmy is talking about does create something, and I get more bold in the future. So I don't, you know, use a sucker for in the next big check written out, but want to build that 10, 20-year company that creates 10,000, you know, a lot more value than I have done. So thanks for pointing it out. It's a fair point. The bigger the exit, the bigger the multiplier. Okay, so on that note, I think we should thank the panel, Tanya, Tommy and Jimmy from some very inspiring commentary on important issues. So thank you guys.