 Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this very important session. I think we all passed the first resilience test if we found the right chair. We passed that one. So as we all know, this annual meeting of the World Economic Forum I think is happening against the most complicated backdrop geopolitically, geographically in decades. This session is really about making sure that we can avoid future crises like COVID, also unnecessary economic downturns, economic fracturing of the world to invest a little bit in resilience to avoid to run into situations where the cost of inaction far exceeds the cost of action. What we have seen, though, is many of the risks that we are faced with. They're so interconnected. So we're not able to just deal with one. We have to deal with the whole scope of it. And they have knock-off effects, so knock-on effects. So that's also what we will discuss here today. So we have a great panel to do so. I think you're familiar with them. But let me start with Rania Almashat. She is Minister of International Cooperation of Egypt. We have Bob Sternfeld. He is the managing partner, means the boss of the bosses in McKinsey. I wish. And then we have Haldun Mubarak, welcome Haldun, CEO and managing director of Mubadala Investment Company, one of the big investors of the world. And then we have Maria Gabrielle, commissioner for innovation, research, culture, education, and youth at the European Commission. And last but not least, Robin Wins, the president and CEO of BNY Mellon, one of the leading American banks. So I think you all deal with risks in your daily life. And maybe I'll go to Bob Sternfeld first. We have worked with McKinsey and the World Economic Forum the last year on building like a coalition on and for being more aware of the blind spots that the risks are, but also how to build resilience. So how can we deal more proactively with mitigating risk risks and also to build resilience? Over to you, Bob. Well, thanks, Borgen. Thanks for having me here. And it's great to be with all of you on this. And I guess I would start with a thank you to you and to the World Economic Forum. For a little over a year ago, collaboratively coming up with the idea that we should create a consortium on resilience. And McKinsey is proud to be a founding member of that. I think we'd also, I'd speak for you as well, we'd love other leaders in the room to join the consortium. It's a moment to work together. I was also very excited to collaborate on the paper that you mentioned that we put out earlier this week on the notion that resilience can actually be a key enabler to drive sustainable inclusive growth. And you may ask, then, why? And I guess I would start with resilience matters. And in the report, we talk about the idea that if you look at this decade, there's up to 20% of GDP growth at play, up or down, depending on how much we lean into resilience. That's a massive number. When you look at private enterprise and you look at companies that are resilient and you look at the last couple of downturns, the work shows that companies that act in a resilient way outperform their peers by up to 50% in terms of total shareholder returns. So I'd start with this matters. The second point I'd make is, but it doesn't come for free. And we do need to think about the quantum of investment, not cost, but investment, required to be truly resilient. And we talk about things like over $5 trillion in infrastructure, $9 trillion per year in climate technologies, $500 billion for education. There's a massive investment required for resilience. Maybe one notion of, but why now? And I'd make the case that this is a real moment where, if we do take this notion of it's an investment, not a cost, we can not only be safer, but we can actually enable growth. Growth that's inclusive and sustainable. And you think about investment being a catalyst for new technologies, everything from AI to industry 4.0 and everything in between. An investment for infrastructure that would not only make us safer, but also be the foundation for growth going forward. And an investment in training that would solve some of the big talent mismatches that we have going forward. So is there a moment now? Maybe I'd then kind of close with, well, so how do we do this? And I just have a few thoughts. One, I think we do need to think about this notion of investment, not cost. And many say, well, what's the cost of resilience? I tend to frame it, Borgia, as you did, which is an investment. And can we get more out of this when we think investment mindset? I think the second is we need a common framework to think about resilience. And the paper talks about a framework both for public sector and private sector. But can we agree on standards? What do we mean by resilience? And maybe the last thing I'd say is hyper-collaboration. We won't solve this ourselves. Private sector up and down value chains, public-private partnerships, and maybe partnerships with stakeholders, many of you are stakeholders, to think in the time horizons required to get these returns on investment for resiliency. Thank you, Bob. One thing I was reflecting on was, of course, building resilience is important and it could and can be a good investment. We have seen on trade side now that some countries and also businesses are much more conscious about the global value change, not just in time, but also just in case, you see, nearshoring, French-horing. But we can also go too far in that direction. And then we shave off growth. So how would you advise businesses and countries to find the optimal way of investing in resilience? Because you could put all your money into resilience. That would not be wise. But I think you're saying that we're today probably under-investing a bit in resilience. I think so. And to your point on one aspect of this, which is around the complicated issues of globalization and what follows globalization, there's actually some really interesting work that we did that shows, one, we're more interconnected than we ever thought. We all know the benefits of the last 30 years in globalization. We also know some of the stress points. But if we do default to some of the terms that you used, French-horing or even more aggressively decoupling, the value of global GDP that's at risk is anywhere between 10% and 40% of global GDP. It's a massive number. Now one of the interesting things, though, that shows a weakness and lack of resilience is we are less diversified in global trade now than we were in 1990. Trade has gotten more concentrated. Massive trunk roots. Think of Europe, China, US, China. And one of the arguments, perhaps, in thinking about an investment in resilience is not the de-globalization of trade, but the diversification of trade. And you start to think about other countries. You think about the UAE. You think about Egypt. You think about India, Indonesia, Vietnam. And there I wonder we could be not only more resilient from a risk point of view, but we could actually drive inclusive growth because more countries could participate. There may be a way to think about that. I think that makes sense. And that will also mean more manufacturing in countries today that are not leading in manufacturing. But as you said, if you get 80% of semiconductors from one or two countries, or minerals, and et cetera. Rania Almashat, minister from Egypt, you were critical at heading and sharing the COP 27 in Shamshake. And I guess you made reflected on the meeting also. Afterwards, we got loss and damage for the first time into the agreement. But I think we're all seeing that we are very, very vulnerable when it comes to climate change. There's not any more about why, but how. And how much do we need to invest in the years to come on mitigation, but also adaptation? Because it's really happening there. And I think in Egypt, you also feel climate change every day with water challenges, but also the impact it has on agriculture production. Well, thank you very much. And thank you for inviting me to be part of the group and the consortium. A few points to make, and I love the way it's phrased. It's not a cost. It's an investment. Because if you don't invest into resilience, you move into loss and damage. So that's the way, if I'm putting it in a COP context, if we're not investing enough in adaptation projects, if we're not investing enough in private sector, if the government is not doing enough policy to increase resilience, then we're going to be in a situation where we're trying to find money as quickly as possible, increasing the debt to be able to avoid a loss and damage situation. A few important points reflecting on COP and this concept of resilience. If countries are not very aware that today, if you are trying to invite investors, if you're trying to finance your own sovereign projects, financing is very difficult if it doesn't have climate action embedded somewhere. And therefore, the argument that we were making to increase resilience in general is that climate action and development should not be seen as mutually exclusive. They come hand in hand. And it comes hand in hand because we've seen over the years that if we don't do that, the implications, not just on a national level, but on a global level, are quite big. So if we take a look at the report, and I invite everyone to take a look at it, it's split maybe into increasing resilience on the social level because there are people that are affected. If we're looking at health, if we're looking at education, if the cost is going up so much, then you're eating from a pool of resources. And those that are affected most are the sectors which are supposed to increase your resilience. So that's an important point. There's a social aspect. The other aspect is related to inclusivity and SDGs. And therefore, this point about growth and then finally the financing. So again, if these are the three points that the report come out and explicitly identify, very, very important. And the other point is it's not just a government being resilient without the private sector being resilient. It's really a collective because at the end of the day, we've seen that crisis when they happen, if it's a financial crisis, it affects everyone. If it's a crisis where the private sector and banks are involved, then again, it affects growth and it affects governments and so forth. So our message from COP was climate and development should be seen hand in hand when governments today are putting out development projects which include private public partnerships or try to catalyze private sector and so forth. We need to be very, very clear on the national level what the NDCs are but also make sure that the private sector is aware of the goals and the plans and that all of us are working together. And of course, hyper-collaboration, again, crisis in and crisis out, it's shown that without international cooperation and, you know, WEF is a fantastic forum for that. It would be very difficult to meet the common problems that we are all facing and increase our resilience. Thank you, Minister Rania. I go to Haldun Almobarak. You heard Minister Rania was saying that it's not only a cost but it's an investment in resilience. So how do you think you're one of the large investors in the world but also UAE in general? I know you play a critical role there. How do you think about resilience? Because it's also about optimizing the investments because we know from government that you could invest so much there is no money left but I think we're more conscious about this resilience piece now than we were in the past. Yeah, I mean, listen, the UAE, you know it very well, is a country that is all about resilience. Our history, our 50-plus year history, for many of you who have been there, and for someone that have lived through most of it, you would have seen a country that I think was completely underdeveloped in every way 50 odd years ago and now is considered one of the most developed countries in the world and it's by investing, investing in the long-term, investing in the infrastructure, both human and physical, and that creates that resilience. Yes, I think we're blessed with natural resources but it was also about diversification, you know, consistently over the last 40 years, a consistent investment into diversification of the economy and the development of the country. I think that's worked very well for us. The last couple of years I think have been pretty remarkable in many ways, not necessarily all good for the world, for all of us here on this room in terms of the Black Swan events that we dealt with over the last three years. A couple of them, each one of them I think we all know in its own self is incredibly challenging and I think put that resilience reality to the core of every business, every country, every economy, you know, everybody in this room would have been impacted in some way or another by these Black Swan events over the last three years. Now, what that took us into is a shift from what was predominantly a cost-driven approach in the past, that cost-driven approach led to energy policy in some places where you had dependence over 80% on one supplier, where you had production of one particular commodity or what's called commodity semiconductors in one country and these things were not looked at within the resilience lens because it was completely cost-driven. So what the last three years have taught us all is it cannot be that way. There has to be in addition to the cost, a resilience aspect, a diversification aspect which is critical. Now, the challenge is we can also go too far down that road where also cost is important and we all know that and it cannot be to Bob's point then resilience at the cost of cost where then it becomes an impediment for growth in whatever sector or whatever economy it is. I think the challenge we all deal with today is particularly with the last three years, particularly with this divide, the push towards decoupling, de-globalization. These are very, very challenging headwinds and I think from our perspective here, I will say a UAE perspective, a Ibo-Badal perspective as an investor, my personal view on this, that's also a problem because yes, we have to have a resilience aspect of it. We have to have diversification. We have to have sensible views when it comes to global supply chains but also decoupling is not necessarily the answer because the problem that creates is also quite substantial for all of us moving forward. Not having this gathering, WEF for the last three years was a problem. I mean, yes, we had virtual meetings, yes we will but look at us here, we're all back here now. You're seeing people from all over the world, east, west, north, south. This sort of grouping brings us back together, brings us back towards communicating and I think that's fundamental and I see in a very cautiously optimistic way the future as we come back together, as we communicate back again, how we have to now create the new way and it's not de-globalization, it's not necessarily globalization and the way we knew it in the past, there is a new way. A re-globalization or a different kind of globalization. As you mentioned also, I think there is a big difference of diversification and decoupling. We heard Vice-Premiere of China yesterday also underlining the importance of trade and investments and reforms and if we look at the decoupling, I think that will then apply for maybe 10% of the trade. Maybe there are areas of national security and et cetera but still there will be a possibility to trade with 90% of the goods I guess. Absolutely, I think there's no question that as long as there is a fence that defines what is justifiably positioned as a decoupled space. Whatever it is, whatever sector, let's say semiconductor as an example. Fine, I think that gets put in and there's guardrails within that but then the remaining pie, the remaining 90%, 85%, 95% maybe, I don't know what the number is. That has to be, in my view, released in an appropriate way. The challenge is when you have a company when you have a cloud, it affects the whole. So let's look at the last quarter, the last two quarters. I think I was, in the last two days I've been speaking to a lot of people. We had a wave of negativity. In the last third and fourth quarter, this year it was going to be a disaster. And that, you heard it in the media, you heard it from politicians, you heard it from government, you heard it from everyone. Yet, I think all of us, I won't be presumptuous about speaking to myself, you look at the data and it's telling a different story. But you can't help but be influenced by this wave you're hearing from on the screen in meetings, government, and then you pause. That pause, I think is what hit us in that last quarter, last year. Now, I think you see it today, I think at WEF, you don't hear that. People are starting to now go back to data, go back to fundamentals. And I'm not saying it's going to be great or it's going to be a bad year, but it's certainly not as bad as we thought it was because of that. And I think that's the same argument goes to the decoupling because I think that cloud is very much there until we have that clarity. I think you're right that when we meet it's also easier to address those things also between nations. And what we are seeing now is a little bit more of a picture of silver linings. I think growth will be back in China in a major way late 2023. And the one region that was almost written off was Europe. Europe was going to be in a total energy crisis. People were concerned if they could come to Davos because there was no heating here. And industry production was gonna deep dive and last quarter industry production increased in Germany. And we're also seeing that Europe is diversifying very fast. So Commissioner, I guess there are still Commissioner Gabriel some challenges ahead for Europe. And where would you say that Europe know with learning from building a Russian gas, US security and Chinese export? I guess there's a little bit discussions known how to build stronger resilience moving forward. Well, first I think that what was clear the last few months is there is strategic sectors from supply chains, technology, health, agriculture, transport. And there is strategic challenges. Investments again when we talk about talents. What I'd like to raise is the importance of innovation and education. Because I think that the first strong message that Europe sent it really to stay united. And that's actually for me a real challenge to stay united not only between member states within Europe, but with our international partners and allies. And to build these strong partnerships, partnerships between different governments and countries, partnerships between public and private sector and many other partnerships. We have to innovate in this ecosystem approach that we have to adopt. Because we would like to have this resilience, there is a lot of key elements to take into consideration. The second thing that's what we are doing and maybe that explains a little bit these good numbers is that we are looking very much now on the new wave of innovation. Actually, we are witnessing a new wave of innovation. The so-called deep tech innovation. And for us deep, that means deepest societal challenges. That means that the world of science and industry, together with education and talents, is working with the regulators since the very beginning in order to offer solutions that are adequate to the needs of our citizens. It was good thanks to the digitalization. We increased the productivity. But it's not sufficient anymore. We need new products that will tackle these challenges. And what is good is that the companies that are in the deep tech, 94% of them are answering to sustainable development goals. It's really impressive. And we have another good example. Take the mRNA vaccine, a startup working with a big industry company, with the regulator really to accelerate the procedures and to continue to invest in building an ecosystem, connect the local innovation ecosystems and have talented skills. So for me, that's the main challenge now, really to see the investment in education, not as a cost, but as a real investment. Because behind all these good companies, good innovation, brilliant examples, we have brilliant people with the necessary skills and competencies. And so on the other side, yes, to innovate and to see the innovation itself, not just to produce technologies or prototypes, but to see how they can build this resilience, how they contribute really not to exclude someone, but not to left anyone behind. And that's for me the main message. But investing, for example, in education and R&D, that's you're saying, a part of future success. We heard that President von der Leyen yesterday was pretty tough when it came to the IRA, this inflationary reduction act. I think there are huge investments. I'm not sure if the act is gonna reduce inflation, but it's huge investments in the semiconductors, decarbonization and innovation. What is Europe's answer to this? Is it like saying that this state subsidies or are you just pulling the same kind of money together and say, we will do as well as the US for those that want to be in this sector? Well, definitely diversification will be the key word because there is no miracle solution. Yes, of course, if we have stated rules in our hands, we have to see how we can adapt them. But there was another big announcement that was the Net Zero Industry Act. And that's the clean tech. In clean tech, it's an example of this deep tech wave of innovation where we have facts, it's an evidence-based policy, and where we have to build on this trend. What is different again for me is to build different partnerships. What I think that if you'd like to succeed, not just to be opposed to any other decision, that's the right of everyone to take decisions. What we should stop to do is to lose time only to oppose to each other. Now, let's see what are our respective strengths and what we can do in order to bring solutions to the problems of people. And that's why we need to change the approach. That's why I'm always saying from co-creation to co-implementation. We need for these new solutions to co-create the solutions together with the stakeholders, not only public institutions, not only governments, but together with universities, with innovators, with startups, with public and private investors. And after, to co-implement those solutions together in order to see very rapidly if there is a need to adapt to be flexible and to identify tendencies much more rapidly, not to discover five, 10 years later that there is concentration or there is lagging behind. So that's for me a strength, of course. There is a momentum to seize. And I think that with the announcement of the president, Europe will be there to seize the momentum. Thank you very much. It was very interesting to listen to Minister Habek, the minister for economy, and also energy from Germany yesterday. Saying that it was a cardinal mistake, of course, of Germany. He said it to decide that 40% of the natural gas was coming from one country and that so much also was based on export to China, has to diversify, and then he said, can't put all the eggs in the basket of Washington, to see when it comes to security either. But anyway, coming to you, Robin Wins, there is no one better than banks to identify, at least that's what we hope, identify risks, mitigate them, and also build resilience. And I think we've seen through this economic downturn too that the banks are much more robust than they were in 2007, 2008. So what are your reflections on risk and resilience and the optimizing of this? OK, look, it's a very important topic, and I actually want to come back to something that both Rania and Bob said earlier on when we were talking about the concept of resilience and is it a cost or is it an investment? We keep it kind of simple in our company, and I think this applies across the financial sector more broadly, resilience is commercial. Being resilient is a commercial endeavour, and you alluded to it with the question, which is, economies around the world rely on the financial sector to be resilient, to be able to weather downturns in the general state of the economy. You alluded to all of the work that's been done since the financial crisis, and that's right. Just the US GSIBs alone, that's the eight biggest banking institutions just in the US, added half a trillion dollars worth of capital to their balance sheets since the financial crisis as an investment in resilience and ensuring that in whatever it is that happens next, and one can't predict whatever it is that's going to happen next, they will be able to weather those storms. And I think collectively, the financial services industry around the world feels very proud of having managed through what was an incredibly disruptive event through the global pandemic. When all of the business as usual, that we all depend on the fact that the cash machines continue to work, the fact that our debit cards and credit cards can still tap on consoles, the fact that we can transition to being more online purchases. In our case, BNY Mellon, we settle every day between 10 and $15 trillion worth of US treasuries as part of our role in helping the US government to be able to conduct its own operations. We touch about 20% of all investable assets in the world, with the world's largest custodian, $44 trillion worth of assets that we have on our custody platform. If resilience isn't commercial for us, then we're obviously missing a trick. And so then the question becomes, okay, how do you become resilient? And it's all the things that everybody's been talking about. We need diversification. We can't have all of our eggs in one basket. We can't service our business out of one place. We have to be globally distributed. We have to be regionally distributed. We have to have a variety of different technology infrastructure so that we're not dependent on a place that we can render our business out and distribute it to wherever our customers may be. So there's a lot of work that goes into it. There's a lot of investment that goes into it. But at the end of the day, it is commercial and it's wrapped up in brands and trust that we can actually rely on sectors to perform through thick and thin. Well, thank you. And even if the banks now are showing a little bit, not as good results as in the past, we're saying that they're much better prepared for also taking hits. I think we're all also wondering about who is the economic outlook for 2023. Are we gonna see like also a recession in the US? Will that be a very shallow one? What could we do today to avoid this possible recession? And this is where I would like to also hear you telling us a bit more of what tools do we have in our toolkit. We see that inflation is going down in the US now, but I think we still can expect the Fed to continue increasing interest rates because you have an inflationary target of 2%. That was maybe possible when China was exporting deflation every year, but things have changed. So maybe I separate the comments into two things and sort of where are we now and what might we expect potentially? But then let me just talk about the other part of your question, which is the investment and the preparedness. I think it's a large financial institution, but this applies to any walk of life. You just don't know exactly what the future has in store. Anybody who is arrogant enough to think that they know the answer about how the world's gonna unfold in the next 12 months, we have to worry a little bit about them. And so the consequence of that is to say, well, we don't know, but we have to be prepared for different eventualities. And that to me is the heart of what risk management is. I worked for somebody once who had an expression they used to use, which was we have a great crystal ball, but it only works for the present. And it's a great insight into where we are at this moment in time. And I think that's instructive. And so as a financial institution, what we do, and I know other financial institutions do the same thing, we're preparing for all of these things. Maybe we'll have a terrible recession. Maybe we won't have a recession at all. Maybe the Fed will be hiking rates all year. Maybe they'll start cutting rates at the end of the year, but it doesn't really matter which path it's on in terms of our ability to be prepared. We have to be prepared for all reasonable and plausible consequences. I think that's the heart of a good risk management mindset, which is don't try to predict, but prepare for all of those different possibilities. Now, having said all of that, what do we actually see, which was the other part of your question? Well, we touch 20% of the world's investable assets, and through that we get insight. Again, not about what's going to happen, but what has been happening now. And when we look at our own data, we certainly see that some of the forces that were driving the dollar to the strength that we saw in 22, some of those have abated. Again, it's not a prediction for the future, but it's a comment about where things stand today. We've also seen some of the very aggressive shorting of the US equity market abate. Again, not a prediction, but an observation. And we've also seen less investment in sort of buying in the long end of some of the debt markets, particularly in the US. Our own economists suggest that, while everything is going to be data dependent in the US, there's certainly a possibility that we could maybe see a little bit more from the Fed than is currently priced into the market, that possibility of getting all the way to 5%. Maybe it's even possible that we could go beyond in Fed funds rates. And also the possibility that we'll stay there for a little bit longer. The market currently prices that the Fed will be cutting rates again by the end of 2023. Certainly possible, there are sets of data that could lead that to be the outcome, but we think that that's less likely as a base case scenario, given the importance of combating inflation, given the importance of making sure that we really do deal with that once and for all. And once the Fed starts cutting, it's hard to turn around. No, thank you for that very thoughtful answer. And also about this, it's hard to predict, but you can't prepare. And so I think that's a lesson learned. Turning back to you, Bob, you listened. I think this discussion has brought up a lot of very important points. I think it was no Robin also saying that resilience has to be commercial. I think that's a good point. But also this is about predicting. I remember when I started my economics studies, the professor Asselinbeck saying that economics is not an exact science. So if you bring five economists in the same room, there's probably eight different opinions. So I think this also proves that we have to be prepared. But looking at this, resilience is being commercial and that you have to be prepared. If you, as McKinsey said, do deal with a lot of the global companies, if you, would you be able to share any areas where you see blind spots where we are weaker than we should be commercially when it comes to being resilient? You know, I think it's a great question and I might link. And you give that advice for free-hearted. Yeah, exactly. As an appetizer. Exactly. You get what you pay for. You know, I'd maybe link, Robin, where you were going, Haldun, some of the things that you said. And you know, part of this is I think any organization is stepping back and saying, look, I need to stress test a much wider array of scenarios going forward than I ever did before. And am I missing something, right? This notion of rather, am I going to be certain? But let me actually widen the aperture. Let me widen the aperture around geopolitics, around where global growth will come from, around how fast we hit our climate goals, around talent shortages. And so I think one of the muscles that I see enterprise starting to build is a wider capability to look at a set of scenarios that were inconceivable a couple of years ago. And I think that's prudent. And I think that goes to your notion of plan versus predict and are we ready to adapt? But I would link it with if we stop at planning, nothing's gonna happen. And I go to Haldun, one of the observations you made, you know, one of the things that I'm picking up is I think 2023 is a year of getting stuff done. Despite all these disruptions, I need to make decisions as a leader. And I need to make some decisions that some can be reversed, some are irreversible. But based on the data that I'm seeing, am I actually starting to act? And one thought for me is if we start to do that, we may change some of the answers to how the world could actually play out. I think interest rates are a key component to the equation but we also know that a large chunk of this inflation was driven by supply disruptions, right? Supply disruptions will be driven largely through capital investment made by the private sector. And if we then come together to say, look, let's start making some decisions and move even under uncertainty against a wider range of scenarios, we may end up having some positive outcomes that could actually come through this year. Haldun, looking at the risks and where we are prepared and not so prepared, any thoughts on that? So there's one, maybe I'll completely take us out of the box here. So what we're seeing- Sorry, I have to put you on the spot. No, no, no, no. But, you know, I want to throw something that may be controversial. So what's happening in open AI right now is incredible. Now you can look at it from a risk lens or you can look at it from an opportunity lens. Since you're asking about risk, let's look at it from a risk lens. This is a revolution that's now just about to, I think, kickstart. I don't know what impact that's going to have on industries, businesses, sectors. I mean, you can certainly see the possibilities and the potential of disruption as quite significant. And that is a risk, I'll answer the question in the risk lens, that I don't think, from my perspective, I have a clear view on. And when I look at our investments, when I look at our portfolios, when I look at our industries that we're in, the impact of this AI revolution that it's going to have now at a pace that, in my view, is going to be coming now fast and furious, are we ready for it? What businesses are ready for it? How are they going to adapt? How are they going to pivot? How are they going to take advantage of it? And of course, what are the ones that are not going to be able to deal with it? And what does that mean? What does that mean and what does that mean for us from a portfolio allocation, from a deployed capital perspective? How do we exit these industries, these sectors that we're going to have to take a view on right now? If we had had this discussion a year ago, I would have told you, now we're still away from that conversation or that discussion. I think now, no, I think it's here. It's now, and I think we have to really look at that from both a risk and an opportunity lens. I agree, and I think what we're seeing between the G2 is China and the US is a race for those new technologies. They do understand that those that are on top of it will also be most influential. I'll come back to you, Rania, on this, but I also, Commissioner, I know you care a lot about this and AI and how is the European Union prepared for this? Because it's a risk, but it's also a huge opportunity for those that succeed. But for developing countries in the platform economy where the winner takes it all, it raises also some problems. So we have four minutes, so one minute, one minute, and then we'll close at the end here. Well, very briefly, maybe for this question, how to be better prepared? Of course, we can predict everything, maybe a little bit provocative thought, but we need to continue to invest much more in fundamental research because we talk about companies, citizens, sectors, investors, but without the fundamental research, it will be impossible to be better prepared in future situations. But will you do that? Because you're lacking on the Chinese environment. Yes, we have the European Research Council. I think that it's our Nobel Prize Factory, and we are very proud. So now there is a lot of other challenges. But it's really important to continue to invest in research. The second, it's really to bring closer to these worlds of research, innovation, and education to industry. It's something that it's not obvious. We don't think spontaneously to each other, but suddenly we discover that we can provide concrete benefits and concrete situations in order to be more resilient. And finally, let's tackle much more the fragmentation of the original innovation values. Everywhere in all our continents, not only within the European Union, we have vibrant local innovation ecosystems. They are not connected to each other. If you'd like to be better prepared and to anticipate, and not only to talk about supply chains and dependency short or long, we need to tackle this issue. Rania, I guess the new technologies, and I know you worked a lot on this, could be a way of leapfrogging for developing countries. But still we know that 3.6 billion people are not really connected to state of the world internet. So what are your reflections? How can Egypt leapfrog in such a situation? Is it possible? I want to say that and thank you, Khadoum, for bringing this as a big opportunity slash risk, because I think the AI is going to redefine how we think about countries, correct? I mean, it's not just going to be about growth. It's not just going to be about natural resources. It's going to be about how fast the population, those who's going to be running all of this. So I think there's going to be a reshaping of the economic landscape based on exactly this. Is it going to be a knowledge economy? Is it going to be... We used to talk about just services. Now it's taking it to a different level. And I just want to conclude with one thought, also reflecting on the discussion. Predicting, preparing, but also not controlling, anchoring perceptions, because I think that we used to talk in the past as economists about sunspots and creating the sunspots, and actually you see the disaster materializes, because everybody's expecting it. So how can we reduce information gaps, anchor expectations more and perceptions so that we don't fall into more risks? And I think that happens by making sure that everything is more resilient. Take food security, for instance. If people believed that countries and private sector in their investments were more resilient against food shocks, maybe the extra premium on prices would not have been materialized because of the perceptions. So I think that's importance of anchoring expectations through investing in resilience. Thank you, Rania. Robin, of course, for your industry, the artificial intelligence can change a lot of things. Maybe comment on that. And the second thing is that a lot of the risks are... We cannot really predict, as you said, who would have thought that thousands of people were storming the capital the 6th of January? Who would have thought that Russia would try to invade a country where they have never disputed the border? So there's a lot of uncertainties also in the future that we will have to be resilient, but we can't exactly know what is happening. So your last reflections on those two things. So first, just on the artificial intelligence. So look, it's a very, very powerful capability, and I think it's very exciting. It certainly has risks. It's not native intelligence, of course. Ultimately, it's models, complex models, very, very impactful models. But one of the things that many industries have done over time with models is understand you really have to measure and control models. We in our industry, in fact, have people who are independent from the creation of models, whose sole job it is to really test and validate and make sure that we understand how things will behave so that we don't get unpredictable outcomes. Certainly not where those unpredictable outcomes and models are plugged into ordinary course important activities. So that's an important science that's going to have to build up around these types of capabilities, which is the process of understanding them and making sure that we understand and define the boundaries for them. So that's going to be that. In terms of the preparedness, I'll just go back to what Bob said earlier on. We have to prepare for all the eventualities. We'll hope for the best. We'll prepare for a whole bunch of things. We won't prepare for exactly the thing that's going to happen. We all know that that to be the case. But across the scenarios of what it is that we prepare for, we probably will have developed some, as it's called in the US, some muscle memory associated with that. That's useful. And also, it conditions us all to have that mindset. And I think actually that makes us more adaptable. And so part of resilience is also about the ability to adapt to things that are slightly outside of what we exactly prepared for. But we've practiced enough at adaptation that we can then adapt to that new thing. That to me, that's also the heart of resilience. Thank you. Thank you so much, Robin. Thank you to what I feel was a great panel. I learned a lot about resilience during this panel. Probably things I should have known before, but that is what also Davos is about, intelligent conversations where we all learn. And I think the best test of a good Davos panel is if you come out and have learned something new or you start to reflect. And to the panelists, you delivered on that. Thank you. Thank you.