 Thank you all for being still here with you. I wanted to really thank you all for coming to lose, for those of you who are not here on the ground here with us. So thank you for having gone through a lot of adversarial events and manifestation. I wanted to really thank you for participating in these events that is very dear to us, this integration of the new TSC Sustainable Finance Centre. I would like also to thank very much Sophie Muanas, who has been very instrumental in putting together the program. Along with a lot of people who I see, I see Catherine Kazamata, Patrick Febbe, Milo Bianchi, who has also been very active in preparing the conference. I don't see Christophe Bizer, but also thank you very much for making sure that this event was great, both from a scientific and a personal point of view. So thank you in particular to Sophie and all of you. I wanted also to thank very much the staff who has helped us in doing a lot of operational risk management and reorganising, reshuffling a lot of things. So I'm thinking about Valérie Placier, Prien Katalim, and Stéphanie Risser, who are not here, but I think we can also applaud them. And so we are here for this last session of the conference, which is a round table on new risks and new challenges. So it's very open. So we are going to have an interesting discussion and I guess our participants whom I'm going to present will focus around the new risks related to climate change in particular. And we are very happy to have, so today with us, Kera Benamy. Kera Benamy is the Deputy Head of Analysis, Financial Stability and Risk Division at the AMF, the French Financial Market Regulator. So she began her career at the French Ministry and then she moved to AMF. And now she's in the Policy and International Affairs Directorate. And she has been working a lot, in particular, in market micro-search issues. So you are very, very much aware of a lot of things that we discussed about high-frequency trading. And so for those of you who do not know, that Kera Benamy is a former PhD student of Toulouse. And so we are very proud that she's now the regulator trying to have orderly markets. Exactly. And protect investors. And protect investors. So thank you very much, Kera, for being here on the round table. So we also have the pleasure to have Guillaume Le Vanier, who is currently Deputy Head of the Group Investment Office at SCORE, which is a reinsurance company. And he's in charge of the Sustainable Investment Policy. He used to be, for several years, the advisor to the CEO, Denis Kessler. And he's also currently a Maître de Conférence in econometrics at Sciences Po. So again, thank you very much to you, Guillaume, for being here with us. And we also have the pleasure to have on the round table Christian Golié, who is Professor of Economics here, in Toulouse, a specialist of long-term investments and asset pricing, in particular, related to climate issues. So I think we are going to have a very interesting round table. And so the way we are going to organize the round table is that our two speakers from practice will start presenting a few thoughts about this team. And then after, Christian will react, and then the floor will be open for you to try to enrich the discussion if needed. OK? OK, so let me try to help you. So hello, everybody. So thank you very much for having invited me. As stated by Sebastian, I'm very glad to be here today, even that this is the university where I learned almost everything I can rely on to do my job today. So I am here today to talk about sustainable finance and to try to map where, as a regulator, we stand and what's next to be happened. So sustainable finance is the incorporation of environmental, sorry, social, and governance, those famous ESG principles, into business decisions and investment strategies. So it covers many issues from climate and pollution to labor practices or consumer privacy. It is not new in finance, but it has accelerated in recent years and is radically reshaping the finance industry and its relationships with its environment. Climate change features prominently among ESG issues. As the awareness of the way it is impacting financial markets and even financial stability is growing. So this could be achieved not only through a physical risk with an increase of frequency and severity of natural disasters, but also through transition risks that might stem from a disorderly transition to a low-carbon economy. So Guillaume will enter into more details with respect to how they deal with this risk. And this last risk is particularly challenging and show the role that the financial markets has to play. First, through the amounts that are needed to finance the transition of our economies. And in this way, the financial system has a key role to play. But also by the fact that we are already experiencing a shifting mindset from the industry but also from investors towards considering sustainable finance in their investment decisions. So there is a strong momentum to make progress. And there are also a lot of expectations from all stakeholders. And these expectations rely on financial regulators as it is in its core missions to protect investors and maintain orderly markets. So how to do that? We can do that by two ways, guiding and protecting. These are the two main areas of actions where the regulator can help. It can help support and encourage the boom towards a more sustainable model. So what we have observed is that despite a lot of initiatives, there is still a lot to do. And the regulator has a role to play. So how? By guiding and assisting firms, so helping them to adopt best practices and develop their framework to facilitate innovation, that will have a major role in the transition phase. And by protecting investors and maintaining investment in the financial systems, so this implies supervising the effectiveness and the quality of information disclosed to investors and avoid any attempt of greenwashing. And lastly, to develop and contribute to the European and international debate on this field, to collectively try to build a robust and an ambitious framework in line with the European Commission action plans. And this is where I go now, because in March 2018, the Commission published a very ambitious action plan with one of the four pillars of the EU strategy to achieve the 2050 carbon neutrality target, as already resulted in the adoption of several texts. So what are the objectives of the Commission? The objective is to refocus capital flows towards more sustainable investment, but also to manage financial risks and, of course, to promote transparency. It has declined this action plan into 10 main focus areas that are exposed here. So the idea is to foster the responsibility of fund managers and investors, the reporting of companies, and anchorage supply and demand for sustainable products. So there have been several texts that have already been adopted, and some of them are still under discussion. But you have the benchmark regulation, which creates two new categories of low carbon benchmarks. And the new category of benchmarks that allows to align the portfolio within the Paris target agreement. And that strengthens the disclosure requirements for all benchmarks with the integration of ESG factors in their methodology. You also have the disclosure regulation, which is a very complex text, and which has introduced core concepts such as the sustainability risk and the fact that you have to evaluate the potential negative impact on the value of the investment due to an adverse ESG impact. So there are two levels of disclosure, not only of the entity level, but also at the product level. This can be done at a pre-contractual phase, or you can have also periodic reports and information that is published on the website. And then the last text, which is still under discussion, which is under trilogue at the commission level, is the taxonomy text, which proposes an harmonized criteria to determine whether an economic activity is environmentally sustainable or not. So having said that, the sustainable finance is one of the priority of the IMF, which has largely contributed to the work. It is fully supportive of the commission's action plans. And the sustainable finance part is a key pillar of its strategic visions. So once again, through guiding and protecting investors, bringing consistency and ensuring readability. So of course, there are plenty of efforts to be done still regarding completing the regulatory framework or identifying remaining issues, such as reporting standards, data providers, or rating agents. Thank you. Thank you, Sam Célezna. Thank you for being here. SCORE, the company I work for, is the fourth global reinsurance company. And for those who don't know the reinsurance business, it's very easy. We insure mainly against the major climate events, such as floods, tornadoes, massive wildfires, and else. We also insure against pandemics and other large losses events at a global scale. For these reasons, the risks and the climate risks affect our assets intangibly and tangibly also. So there are material on our business with the P&L. And they also affect our balance sheet on the asset and the liabilities through underwriting and through the investments. Thus, we have a double impact on climate. And we also have a double impact on climate change on our balance sheets. If you now focus on this slide, and just to take the same words as you, we have too many. We have a big difference between physical risks and transition risks. And I think this slide and this curve illustrates the main difference between them. Actually, we define finance since 2015 and since the speech from the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Kearney, climate change risks as the addition of two different risks. The first, the physical ones that are the risk of a potential economic loss and financial losses caused by climate-related hazards. So basically, climate change risks can be acute hazards or chronic hazards, such as new floods, new sea level rises, and so on. Whereas the transition risks are much more the risk associated to the economic dislocation and financial losses associated with the process of adjusting toward a low carbon economy. So for example, if tomorrow France or Europe decides to withdraw all the pits and offshore oil pits around Europe, then you will have to strengthen assets and to have new values of assets that they get sended. And you can see that if you have higher transition risks, meaning if you take actions just to curb the GAGA emissions, then you will have less physical risks. And the other way, if you don't do anything against climate and you don't have any transition risks, then you will have higher physical risks. Just to show you that actually pricing assets in a climate change scenario, you have to define the scenario you're heading to. Are you going to a two-degree scenario? Are you going to a six-degree scenario? And pricing assets depends on the scenario you are taking. And then you will have even more physical risks or transition risks. And this way, how do we act as asset donors and asset managers? We have different levels of taking actions at the asset management perspective either. And this is the first line you do traditional investing. And then you only focus on financial returns. Or you take into account the impacts of climate on your portfolio, which means you become resilient. Or if you go a level down, you can also take into account the impacts of your portfolios on the environment. And if you go down and down and down, you can the final investment focus would be the impact one with a focus not only on financial returns, but also on the environment. And then it would put a trade-off between financial returns and environmental returns. So this is the main chronology of all the asset managers. Some of them are still at the traditional level, 99% I think. And the more you take into account the climate, the more you have to make trade-offs between financial returns and non-financial returns. And the more you go to impact investing. So this slide shows what a traditional investor could do today. So this example is from SCORE, that I will say it more after. So for our business, we take into account the outside in. So the second line I was showing to you, the resiliency, meaning that we take into account the coal, the oil sands, all the IT cores, and all these assets that could be stranded if a transition risk would be higher. But we also take into account the carbon footprint of our portfolio. So we try to have an approach of taking into account these two levels, either the outside in or the inside out, and to manage it within the portfolio. And last slide, I just wanted to show you this slide, which is, I think, our best example of taking into account the transition risk. Actually, we performed an analysis on all our portfolio and tried to see which assets were at risk. So we took 85% of the portfolio. And we wondered, depending on the sector or depending on the industry, sub-industry or depending on the company, which one could be stressed if there was a new regulation with probability just to withdraw this business. So we can see just both that the green shows when there is no risk of withdrawal, then there is the moderate risk, high risk and very high risk. And we're trying, in the asset management side, to monitor this exposure just to diminish, well, to have it low on the portfolio. Thank you very much, Guillaume, for your insights. So if you would like to add some insights or comments or ask questions, I would be very happy to do that. How much time do I have? OK. Five, 10 minutes, and then after, we can have it. Let me say first that I'm sorry I was not able to do that. The conference until this afternoon, I was in Monaco for a green finance event there. I had some impact of billionaires. It's a good business move. So I'm very impressed by what happened over the last few years, in particular the last few months and the last few days, in fact. I mean, it seems to be there is just a enormous tsunami of public pressure, political pressure from the financial market to do something for climate change. And I'm witnessing the flow in the political market. Thank you very much, Victor. Yes, advertisement. You may be interested to read my book, Le Ciba après la fin du mois, that talks about all those issues. So what is fascinating is the solution for solving climate change is not finance. It's the power of states to put a price on carbon. We know as economists that in order to find an externality in the solution, is the polluter principle, the Pigouvian tax law. And just price dexterity and impose this price universally to the markets. And the markets will solve the problem by themselves. And we have been saying that for 20 years. We know we have a climate change problem for at least 30 years and nothing happened. And so now government and people say, OK, plan A did not work. Let us try plan B. And plan B is this green finance movement. I'm skeptical. So first, this investment movement is problematic because we already have carbon leakage when one country decided to put a price on carbon. We know that there will be little impact because most emitting industry will just move on the other side of the frontier. They will dismantle the plan. And they will rebuild the plan on the other side of the border. For finance, this carbon leakage is 10 times larger. I mean, we know capital is very mobile. Physical capital is not too mobile, but financial capital is completely mobile at no cost. So when one bank decides to disinvest, two banks decide to invest. So your impact of this investment is likely to be relatively marginal. Think about tobacco industry. There has been in the 80s a big movement of this investment. Is that useful? I'm not sure. And probably it has a marginal effect on the cost of capital of the tobacco industry. But mostly the main impact was putting a tax on tobacco products. That's what happened. And we have seen some success in that. So same thing for climate change. So that's one first thing. So I'm sympathetic to hold the thought of central bankers, banks insurers, to try to unswear to this public pressure for them to do something. But we should recognize that their ability to do something is quite limited. I mean, I think it's something important to say. Yeah. So if I go back to after all, this round table is about new risk and new challenges. Let us go back to plan A. So suppose that tomorrow we will have some public efforts, a coalition of government deciding to punish brown industries. And eventually, that is assume that the government will become sense about that. I'm not sure that will happen. We know that we have the free-riding problem. And we don't know to solve that. But let us hope that that will happen. And then we will have those standards. Keep in mind, if we put the price on carbon around 30, 35, 30-year-olds per ton of CO2, coal is dead. Coal will be replaced by gas, natural gas in Europe. Producing electricity with gas with natural gas is a little more expensive than producing electricity with coal. But if you put a price on carbon at around 40 euros per ton of CO2, coal will be dead and will be replaced by natural gas, as it is currently the case in the US, but not because of carbon tax, but because natural gas is cheaper than coal due to the shell gas wave. So meaning the coal industry will be a standard asset, at least in Europe. So and of course, banks and insurers and hedge funds and all those players on the financial industry should realize that. And that should be taken into account in their investment strategy. So that's one good thing. And it's important for regulators to say that. I'm not sure that the financial market is not aware of that. And there have been some papers explaining that, again, it's already in the case that asset prices already contain carbon. So why do we need a regulation? For example, there is this idea of a post-climate stress test. Why do we need specifically target this specific factor of risk, not the others? I believe that most investors know that there is a risk that one day the European Union will increase the price of carbon on the EU ETS. So if we are serious on plan 8, it's not 40 euros that we should put on the price of carbon. It must be something like 200, 300, 400 euros per ton of CO2. At the end of the day, it's not only core that we will have to remove from the electricity mix. It will be also gas and oil. Oil is already out for most of Europe and country. But it will be also gas. And to remove gas from the electricity mix, that will be much more problematic because currently, the wind technology and the photovoltaic technology is not profitable compared to gas. So that's a difficulty. It's fascinating to see also this. You mentioned the problem of the European Commission taxonomy. So it's something that is quite fascinating to witness. I mean, this is the idea that the political system will say to the financial industry, this is green. And this is wrong. It's taxonomy. It's 01. It's completely Malikian and that's crazy. So currently, the debate, the taxonomy is not yet finished because there is a big debate about whether the nuclear industry, the nuclear technology, is normal. There is a technical expert from the civil society who is working well for representing the panels. Well, I mean, you know what, I believe that at the end of the day, that will be decided on the relative power of France. That is Germany. Germany. I'm not sure that. I don't comment on this. OK, same thing. So next, so in Germany, people believe that nuclear industry is wrong. But also they believe gas, natural gas is green. That's interesting, because nuclear does not emit any CO2, whereas gas emits CO2. But it's true that at the same time, substituting coal by gas, as I said earlier, is green because when you want to produce one kilowatts, if you do it with coal, you produce almost twice as much CO2 than when you do it with gas. So it should be dynamic. It should be dynamic. Exactly. Well, that would be included. So let me, you're right. We are economists, OK? We are farmers that go with gas. So we need. I think that's not what I said, but. Well, OK. I can be different. We know that we still need, we need oil and gas after all, I would not be here now if I couldn't use my car to come back from what I call this morning, but my car has been taken care of. So we say through the financial industry, we should stop financing the oil industry right now, which is exactly what it is discussed right now. I mean, it makes no sense. So what do you know what I propose? And the problem is that those hedge fund and financial industry, probably, they do not understand what I say. Let me say it again. So I propose that plan A is let us put a price on carbon. And let us, who is able to do that on the state having to impose a price on carbon? So that's currently not politically acceptable. Let us, yeah, that's my last idea that I want to do. So let us go to plan B and plan B, let us try to duplicate plan A. That is, let us suppose that let us try to convince the financial industry to do what, in fact, many industries already do, which is an internal carbon price, total Microsoft, ExxonMobil, Shell, they already use a carbon price, implicit carbon price, when they have to make a strategic decision, but also they do the decision in the company. They use an implicit carbon price. Why not asking banks hedge fund to margin the entire financial industry to use an internal carbon price to evaluate their portfolio. That would duplicate what the state, what the government has been able to do. And so that would be a much more clever substitute to the taxonomy, which is 01, make no sense, and also much more sensitive because different companies could decide to use different internal carbon price. Okay, then just need to say to the public, okay, we decided to optimize your portfolio on the basis of this carbon price, and maybe that company use 50 euros per ton of CO2, and that other bank would use 100 euro, and then the customers decide what the hedge fund is for. So that's what I'm hoping. Thank you very much. Thank you. I think this is just a screen. I think this is just what NL has said, has done one month ago. They issued a system, a system of a relinked bond. Yeah, meaning? NL, the Italian gas provider, yes. And they stated that by 2030, they should curve by 70% the GHG. If they don't, they put a premium of 25 bits onto their bonds on it. And this is not, well, this is only one company. Danone has also done it with the B-Corp certification, but it's a bit starting on the market, but the market is not. Yeah, but what I propose is not the industry to do it, not the petroleum company to do it, it could be for the banks and the insurers and the hedge fund to do it, when they decide to provide loans and capital to a equity of bonds or whatever, they would evaluate the company, taking the account of that price. And if they use a price of carbon, which is larger than 40 euros per tonne of CO2, the consequences that the coal industry will be dead because they will realize that the value creation of those companies is negative when they take into account the implicit emissions of CO2 generated by the public debt. Maybe on the role of regulators and the public pressure and plan adverse plan base. So indeed, these criterium are, so people have in mind that indeed, there is an issue with the carbon or the grown energy and indeed they are supposed to price it already, take it already in the past, but the question is, do they price it correctly? That is one point. And the second one is relative to the pressure and the political pressure, but there is also public pressure, I would say, given that in fact the move towards a sustainable investment is going on, in fact. People are taking this criteria into consideration to invest. If you have a look at the figures, you see that 40% of products are marketed to investor to have a climate or an ESG component. So it is occurring, it's not just, I would say, a public or political pressure. It is taken into account by investors. So what to do with respect to that? So you make the information accessible, at least. You have to know as an investor, what are you investing on? Are you really investing on green product? Is it just greenwashing? Is it just a sticker that it's put on the product? So these are the first action that has been taken, at least. Yeah, Kera, so I was talking to Mone Gas billionaire yesterday. And at the end of the day, they were like, do we make money on those investments? Okay, so yeah, at the end of the day, I don't think, exactly as the yellow vest here in the street of France, had a concern about their own end of the month before the end of the world. I think that people who save their money and invest in the hedge fund and things like that, they probably care about, they certainly care about them change. But it's still an open question to determine whether they're ready to give up some of the return of their portfolio of their savings in order to save the world. There are some papers on that, the experimental papers, the center. Yes, yes, I know, I know it. Yeah, yeah, indeed, I've seen it. I've seen it. The results, it's a little bigger. Okay. So, and instead, but still, you are right. I mean, there has been an evolution in the way those hedge funds or ISR funds present their product. In Sebastian, Sophie, and Catherine, we have been witnessing that for how much time now? 12 years or 13 years? 12 years ago, most SRI fund would say, oh, we beat the market. Our objective is to beat the market. Okay. And now the presentation of their product is different. They talk a lot and that's great. They talk about their impact, okay? And that's new. I mean, 12 years ago, it was, oh, yes, we do something for the planet. And that's good. And there is also a change in the padding on how to choose investments. We have gone from a negative screening on I don't want to have brown energy or whatever product in my portfolio to looking for more positive screening and getting stocks or whatever, financial instruments that foster sustainable funds. Negative screening such as exclusion that narrows your portfolio and increase your volatility. And yeah, and I completely agree with you, meaning that exclusions, I think, is the first step of any political, sustainable politics, but it has to be taken off that risk management on the other side, which is maybe the second step on it. It's just identifying the risks and just pricing them and just excluding them that... Well, I'm not against exclusion strategy. If, as I believe it, we should put a price of carbon at 50 euros per tonne of situ. I know that excluding school from your portfolio is a good thing to do. I don't, you don't need to make the computation. I tell you, you will obtain that result from putting an eternal price on carbon at 50 euros per tonne of situ too. And also try to be as a go. Yes, I'm sure. Because earlier you said that you believe that divestment will not be in back food because there will be carbon in cage. So what you mean is that it should be a policy that is imposed on everybody. No. Across the whole investors, so that if they all divest, then there will be no, there will be no leakage. But that's... And some private companies are out there. That's the same thing that for plan A. For plan A, it would be better if we would have a larger possible coalition of ambitious countries. It's also, for plan B, it's also better if we have more, a larger fraction of financial market around the world to adopt that kind of strategy. So divestment is part of the solution in this plan, plan B. Yeah, at the end of the day, you are putting a price of implicit price of carbon or internal price of carbon in old-age fund at 50 euros per ton of CO2. They will just stop financing code. One good example of the impact of this type of divestment, I think, is the Aramco IPO, which I think has been much more quiet and less aggressive than what they wanted to do. So it's not... Yeah, I'm not sure that's a good example. Exactly, because it's not going to really stop... Yeah, there is the fact that... Well, you know, it's a sad story. I mean, the fact that Saudi Arabia is not able to diversify their economy, it's a very sad story. It's a failure of the system that we do not allow one country to diversify, and that's... Destiny is to go back to the sand. It's too bad. It would be better to have IPO that works at a lower price. This is when you see that economists are very subtle, because in fact, you think that they've been much better to have actually supported the IPO in order to give a lot of resources to Saudi Arabia for it to invest in different technologies. Yeah, that's exactly as you're on paper. I mean, we would like to have a product where you can diversify, to allow people to share risk with each other, and that we just see. On the government public policies, this is putting a lot of trust on the Saudi Arabia for the government of Greece to do that. I have a question for Tim Hanks. So you say that the IMF is trying to induce investors to add more green assets at the same time you care about greenwashing, so we know that for certified green bonds, for instance, investors are ready to pay a premium in order to invest in green bonds. Do you think that... So if there is a bias because there is lots of demand here, do you think that corporations are extracting a rent from this investor? And what is the view of the IMF on investor protection? So the idea is really to make this product transparent. So in fact, Label is under discussion also for the green bonds, so it is part of the plan, of the European plan that I exposed them. So for the moment, green bonds are expanding, but not that much. And the idea is really to make sure that investors have all the information they are supposed to have to make their investment. So the idea is really to make market as transparent as possible to know exactly what they're investing in. What is great in this time is that we have those information about the emissions of CO2, my old public assets, and that's create new opportunities. It took five centuries to create a common accounting system to just evaluate the financial performance of the company. Now we have this window to also measure another performance of the company's emissions of CO2. It will take time, of course, to make that credible and to see that we need to put a value on this extra financial performance in order to make things comparable with the purely financial performance. But things are there, and it's a unique event in the history of financial market for the last 200 years. The problem is that climate change is the only example currently available on the self for doing ESG, ESG is the same. Because how could we do the same thing for ESG and G? How can we quantify these other things? We still are in the blue, which is fortunate, because it's one of the most global and manageable. Yeah, and the trade-off today between financial return and SMG is much more in non-favor of the financial return rather than to find an environmental-friendly investment that has a high yield. You know, there is a difficulty with this global movement on green or ESG, on green finance, I don't know what to call, which is quite strange to see that the public seems to be in favor of a system where, rather than asking the democratic system to determine what is good and what is bad, we are currently moving with this green finance stuff and ESG stuff in a situation where we are promoting the idea that financial market should be able to say what is good and what is bad, and that's quite strange. Do you have any questions from the New Orleans? No, I'm sorry, I'm in the middle of here. I'm pulling up on this, and then you're on a Christian proposal and you're on A or on B. Sure, again, you know, plan B is supposed to be on A. And yeah. So I'll look into this. Obviously, we have a view on, so if you let asset manage, so let's say that now we try to implement plan B and we let asset manager choose and we advertise that they are using it. What do you think about competition there? Will they compete? And lower the tax or some will be specialized on some clients which like private tax at maybe an expense of return? Well, I don't know the preference of the representative investor here. And you know, markets are good to find to find the value on the market. So I probably, I mean, yeah, maybe in the long run all edge fund will converge to the same carbon price. Maybe not, maybe there will be niche of SRI fund that will be using a verandahar carbon price and that will be available for the Bobo. And other SRI fund that is more common for the other fraction of the public. I have no idea. I, in fact, well, that's why we need to continue this research on the experimental research on estimating the heterogeneity and the evaluation of, and also there. And there are probably some theoretical research to be done there when people have preferences of the different in these two dimensions, the consumption and being good for the environment. We look at student follow-up in Warsaw before we work on this. Yeah. I have a plan B question. I guess there's also a reason why there's a plan B, right? Because plan A is something that feeds them, right? Even in the carbon price, so for the money euros a tonne, this would still be cold in Europe. There has been cold in Germany when the cold was deeply unprofitable, but because there's a global interest, there's political interest in supporting this, and that's why we have a plan B. I can also think about plan A is political feasible. So my plan B question is to be on going back to what you had like the physical risk, right? So I thought you talked closely about the transition risk and the asset side of a score, but you're in the midst of actually financing climate risk. The question is if you actually go into a six-degree scenario, what is your internal discussion about what happens if these climates get out of hand and at some point become uninsurable? Of course, there's one reaction to say, okay, just insurance premium go up and it's just a price for it and then you can still insure this, but there might also be a situation when you get just market failure because there's no longer insurance market because it's just become $100. And to what extent does this kind of thing like the climates come so systematic that the insurance market breaks down, the re-insurance market breaks down? Something that is a plan B dimension, right? Sort of like a financial sector needs to face this because you're only communicating with insurance companies that are relying on you and re-insuring them that at some point there is no longer a market. That is part of the equation already in your thinking. It's a very good question because when we're talking about risks, risks are associated to probability. We are not sure. When something is sure, you can't insure it. For example, if you have a four or six degree scenario and then that you have floods every year, then you won't be able to insure it because we will know for sure that there will be a flood. This is why former CEO of AXA said, I think that over four degrees, I do remember well, the world is not insurable, meaning that we don't have the tools today to insure it and to face chronic hazards or new risks that we don't know how to... Just in key, the premium. Well, it's changing the paradigm. And I'm not on the... The other question is, is there always a price that we can offer at some point in the market that's pretty solid? Sure, but we don't know for the time being. A lot of things that today are insurable won't be insurable tomorrow. But I mean, it's much more on the underwriting side that is not my specific point. Then if you're moving to four, five or six degrees, you have consequences which are the tipping points, the tipping climate change points, meaning that you have kind of a domino effect with new risks that are emerging, such as this one that you see on the screen. And this is a complete example that I have no answer to tell you what would be insurable or not insurable. And I think I might have answered you a few questions. But the notion of uninsurable is part of the discussion. Well, I'm not an expert on the underwriting side. So I can't say it for sure. It's interesting to see that in California this week, they decide to freeze the price for the catastrophic risk in the Californian market. Because after the fire last year, the insurer wanted to increase the premium since climate change and that will be there for long. So we need to increase the price, the premium and the state decided, no, you cannot do that. And therefore you have this... They are not actually sure or they don't need to know. Yeah, exactly. But that's a typical problem in the US. And that's where the state need to provide the CBDs to customers and things like that. So even if Marie-Brie has just a very... You can't even remind us that it's almost a factor but we are going to take a last question. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You're so good. Thank you. Thank you for your question. But no one mentioned the climate migration. Maybe that will be the first order as a major risk. Yeah. Climate change has a myriad of consequences. And the models we currently use are very bad in most of those dimensions, in particular this migration problem is very hard to estimate. In fact, also because we don't really know where the largest vulnerability are on this planet. If they are in the area of poverty, that's where we'll have a big, big problem. Well, so thank you very much again for participating and hopefully we are going to have other conferences for these TSE as a civil finance center in the future and we hope to see you all there. Thank you very much for participating.