 Consider back when life expectancy was 70. If I worked as age 65, retirement benefits would only need to provide for five more years. And that would be it. Nowadays, if we work to age 65, we can live 20, 25, even more years beyond that. And that simply is unsustainable. One, we have to look seriously at whether we can retire at age 65 or even at all. A lot of countries and a lot of people are looking at options of working well beyond typical retirement age. Our key finding is that the average individual, and we're looking at the six largest pension systems in the world here, don't have enough saved up for what they're expected to live through in retirement. So an example is that when you look at individuals in these countries, when we're talking about Australia, Japan, Canada, the US, the UK and the Netherlands, the amount of savings that the average individual has will only last them five to six years through retirement. And if you look at their life expectancy from 65 onwards, they're going to live at least 10, and in cases like for women in Japan in particular, they're going to live 20 years in retirement. So there's a huge shortfall and there's a real dire need for people to really think about where their retirement income is going to come from and how much more savings they need in order to be able to live a comfortable life during retirement. The situation we're in right now, we refer to as a pension's time bomb. The reason being, we have three sources of pension income. Government provided benefits, employer provided benefits and individual savings. But we have a gap between that and what people need at retirement. Since we're already starting in a deficit, the fact that people are living far longer than what those benefits were designed to provide for means that those numbers are diverging at a rapid rate. And as the years progress, those numbers will continue to grow even further apart. And that's why we refer to this as a pension's time bomb, because that gap that we've measured will continue to grow at an alarming rate. Two countries are doing novel things in addressing this. In Denmark, what they've done is they've raised the retirement age so that it would move up as life expectancy increases. With the goal of having pension plans provide for the same number of years of pension benefits for the retiree. So for example, let's say that that amount is 14 years. If life expectancy increases by five years, then retirement age increases by five years. And therefore the pension funds will still have to pay out the roughly expected 14 years. In Chile, what the government has done instead of raising retirement ages is that they've provided incentives for workers to work longer and by increasing their benefits if they defer their retirement. And that's a really interesting concept because instead of making people work longer, they're providing extra benefits which helps in terms of the adequacy of the benefits they receive. At the same time, it's better for society in that the workers continue to work later and defer their retirement benefits until later on as well.