 Olemme tullut yhdessä, miten US-verkkoja on ajattelut niin paljon internaali-fansioita, esimerkiksi cash- ja finansialaset, että ne ovat niin paljon internaali-fansioita, että ne on aiemmat lennettäneet, ne ovat lennettäneet tosiaan ekonomiin tämän vuoden 10 vuoden. Tämä on kuten 20 tai 30 vuoden vuodessa, joilla ne ovat aiemmat lennettäneet, 1.4 ilman kylmällinen osuus on their total tangible investment. So we would like to understand exactly how this is that came to be, how each of the firms actually achieved that large position on their own balance sheet with a lot of liquidity at hold. Some people have claimed that this comes at the cost of investment and feel uncomfortable with this idea of, say, manufacturing firm ...charm in the business of lending money instead of actually putting the money into a factory, putting the money into offices. And so we would like to understand if is it true, this is reflecting some underlying frictions, changing frictions that are actually constraining investment and therefore coming at a cost to the economy. Have you any idea what caused it? Our view is that the reason why firms accumulate internal funds is mainly to self-insure, to be able to have these internal funds at hand and do not depend on debt, external banks, external debtors or the beggarist of the financial market regarding equity. So be able to finance the projects themselves without no strings attached essentially and without any kind of fiscal or regulation penalty to do that. Now what the shift coming from the 70s, we are blaming it into taxation. In particular in the 70s the fiscal pressure on shareholders distributions like dividends or capital gains, share buybacks was much higher. So overall equity was substantially costlier for firms to issue and then in the 2000s. So series of regulations tax called reforms actually made it cheaper to issue equity and as a matter of fact that actually make it easier for firms to accumulate those internal funds and be able to rely on them and as a matter of fact the fact that they have these internal funds is it is an indication that I've been able to bring the cost of capital down and therefore that's just turned out with higher investment rather than lower investment as some people suspected. You think this is a positive or a negative thing? I think overall this looks like a positive development. There are some dangers to this. There is a sense in 80s a larger shift on financial positions and we know not all institutions in a given economy are always ready to handle these large shifts and we as economists as well we need to be changing our mindset regarding where the liquidity in one economy goes. It's no longer sitting just in banks or no longer just sitting in some people's savings account. It's also sitting on firms whose decision process is substantially different. There are dangers but there is no reason or even abstracting from my work. I don't see any immediate reason of why this will be a problem right away. Seems like everybody agrees the financial markets are not perfect and the obvious way of avoiding these imperfections is avoiding financial markets altogether and a firm can just do this if it has its own resources and as a matter of fact that's exactly what households do if maybe they want really they're very worried about mortages. You could say well you could save your money it will be very difficult but if we get there it wouldn't be a problem per se.