 Today we have two very distinguished and interesting speakers to talk about the webinar topic. Let me first welcome Professor Tim Jenkinson from the State Business School of Oxford University. Tim is a leading researcher in private markets. He has been at Oxford for more than two decades. He has pioneered interesting research collection of difficult to get data in private markets and has published widely and very well in top finance and economics journals, won several prizes. He has been building an extremely relevant body of research relevant to practice and has also taught scores of executives at SAID. So he also has a great network of practitioners that clearly keep him up to date on whatever is happening. Tim has also a consultant and has been on several public committees, so it's kind of a perfect speaker on the topic. Our second speaker is Professor Pascal Berni, who is the managing director of the Tilburg Institute for Private Data. He has a doctorate from Tilburg University where he teaches and practices on topics mostly related to private debt. He's also in his second or first life, the CEO of Remaco, an advisory firm based in Switzerland. So I will ask a number of questions, but we also invite you from the audience to participate and to send questions through the chat. I will moderate that and make sure that your questions get to the speakers. And before, just before starting, I wanted to notice that clearly the institute is an initiative of the two departments at Tilburg, but it's largely supported by the contribution of its institutional members. And I think that Pascal wants to make an announcement in this respect. Yes, that is true. Welcome everybody. Hello, Tim. It's a pleasure to have any of you. I would say I introduced two new members to not using more than maybe 30 to 40 seconds. As Marco kindly introduced us, I think everything is set, but I want to come warmly to new sponsors of the institute. One is ICV that stands for independent credit view and this is Swiss based company, basically Zurich. The first independent credit rating and credit research Institute in Switzerland and this today offering monitoring services to institutional clients for both public and private market assets in the fixed income sector. From ICV it's very, very positive to have one new partner to the Institute, which also indirectly then finances research that can be used in both academia and practice. The second new partner is asset metrics. And also a warm welcome to asset metrics. Asset metrics is a Munich based asset servicing and analytics provider. They offer modular asset servicing and analytics solutions to LPs and GPs in that sense as metrics has a lot of data. They're currently administering 1500 private market funds and I hope that if what we provide in terms of research, that they might be opening their database to more researchers and at least TIPD so we can gain new insights into the private market assets. This was basically the announcement so a warm welcome and thank you to ICV from Zurich and that's metrics from Munich which I believe also participate in the workshop and we will see whether they have questions to Tim and myself back to Marco. Okay, thank you. So then let's get this started and again if you have questions please put them in the chat and I will get them to the speakers. So my first question and I would like to ask this starting with Tim is to start with the way that the private markets reward investors. So the type of returns that investors can expect from private markets, what are their key characteristics, distribution, evolution over time and relation to public market returns. So Tim, to you. Hey, well that's a very big one to start off with. So thanks for that. I mean, I think that, you know, when we're talking about private markets, we've obviously got lots of different types of assets we could be talking about from some of the most well established venture capital which was probably the first in some ways through buyouts private the private equity asset class we've got real estate we've got various forms of natural resources energy funds and more recently we've got private debt which is obviously very relevant to this institute which is a which I would say is a relatively recent phenomenon and and and obviously I mean at a very simple level, I think that these are essentially private versions of things which we also see in the public markets and you know, I've never been a believer that private equity gives you much portfolio diversification over equity, it's a form of equity, it's not it's not it's not in some ways a different asset class. It's a different way of achieving access to that asset class and I think broadly speaking the same is true of private debt. So, the sort of risk return characteristics, you know, are given by the, the native form of the investment, if you like, but obviously there are some differences there. So if you want to look at the private equity side. Clearly, there might, there are some differences between a portfolio of leverage buyouts that are then public companies, because they're not least because of the leverage on them. You might also be investing in, in slightly different types of companies which are, which are maybe less cyclical or more able to handle high debt loans and things like that so I think there's definitely, you know, that there are definitely some a lot of similarities between the types of types of assets you can invest in on public markets but there's also some, some differences. Now, when you're going to the returns. I think that my personal view is is the most sensible way to think about those is relative to their public alternatives. So we can talk about you know the, the sort of broad characteristics of the type of money multiples you can get back or IRS you can get back on, on those assets which is often the way that the industry looks at it but personally I prefer to look at it relative to the native assets if you like in the public market and, and there I would say that there is much more evidence on certain assets than others, and that's partly because of the longevity of how much experience we've got. And to pick the two that I think there's the most evidence on which is things like venture capital and buyouts. And what you find is, is, is that the returns for buyout funds have been, I would say, good, higher than public market returns net of the, not in substantial fees and fees and profit shares that you have to pay on these, on these funds from the research that I've done there actually hasn't been a vintage year by which I mean the year that the fund was raised a vintage year in Europe where the median private equity fund didn't beat the MSCI Europe index. Now you can argue with the MSCI Europe index and maybe we'll do that. From an institutional investors perspective that's quite a telling statistic that every single year you would have done better in the median fund because I'm not ascribing any, any manager selection skill there. That's why I choose the median obviously if you're good at picking managers you would have done even better. And that's also broadly true in the US, although it depends a little bit more on the index that you use. In fact, the worst year for, for leverage buyouts in terms of the, when you, the vintage year was 2008, which is sort of as you would expect given that leverage was very high and then the financial crisis happened and leverage checkery was not the place to be. So I think that in general terms, for, for the assets that we've got the most data on the returns have been good and on the buyout side venture capital has been a very different, a very different situation where we saw exceptional returns before 2000 when the dot com bubble burst, then a decade of actually very disappointing returns, which gets us through to about 2008, nine and since the financial crisis. The returns have been steadily improving and actually been getting better than both public market comparators and buyouts. And so we've actually seen the best performing asset class for most of the last decade's been venture capital. Now I focused on the equity side just because there's the most, there's the most evidence there but maybe I'll stop there and let Pascal get a word in, but because on the on the debt side but that is the way some initial thoughts on that. Thank you, Tim. Thank you, Tim, for this market. Did you want to ask a question. No, no, no, I just kind of keep it for later. Thank you. So Tim, excellent introduction. I couldn't agree more basically the private markets. To some extent mirroring the public markets however, as you already mentioned, there are there are differences. I think what I could add to what you said is that other than equity markets or private equity markets private debt markets have performed in fact, in and after the financial crisis so we see the highest returns relative to public market benchmarks immediately after the crisis and that is linked I think to a question that we will discuss later, maybe regulatory and bank. So, but in fact we observe and there is a study that I did with a colleague with Sophie money guard that these private credit or private debt returns are not much time varying so they are mostly larger than one so in the measure of PME so if you can compare to public markets, the public markets outperform the public markets we use, of course, a bond benchmark so the marketplace investment grade universe and then you might argue about the risk is higher so we also use the high yield benchmark from Bloomberg, but most astonishing to me is the fact that the private credit markets also outperform the equity markets. We thought outperform the equity markets to the extent that private equity does outperform the equity markets, but we find an average outperformance of even the equity markets which are much more risky than credit by the amount of 6%. So that's, that's the mean outperformance. So comparable to the private equity markets a large dispersion between good and bad funds. So thinking in quartile dimensions the good funds really deliver much more outperformance than the bad funds whereas the bad funds really do not deliver a large on the performance of the benchmark so from that standpoint, very interesting returns as a general introduction. And I also wanted to say yes, private markets mirroring public markets but somehow by construction, we have more inflation protection given given the mostly variable coupons in the private debt industry and we know from tips that they are you know like less co moving with the market so they have lower betas, and that is the case by construction across the whole credit industry. Maybe that explains the low betas which are still to be explored in more research, but I think that is a distinctive maybe a difference from equity markets. So we have, I think low beta still to be proven in more research, but there are good indications for that. And outperformance of whatever benchmark may use so far against the trade markets. Marco. Thanks. I would like to elaborate a little bit more on on on your answers in this respect. So you talked about the returns and clearly a big difference between private and public markets in the respect is liquidity. So the fact that it's difficult for for investors to get back their money in a in a short time. Qualify the returns that you have talked about kind of and how should the investor think in that sense, when they commit, they think of committing money to do private markets, maybe we can start with Pascal now. Yes, of course, thank you. Liquidity is of course close to zero, if you like for the private debt markets at least. But this has a couple of points I need to mention here. So first of all, many, you know, people confuse that the seven to 10 year duration or term of a private debt investment with zero cash flows that's completely wrong. And secondly, both in private equity and private debt you will have cash flows that flow back to the investor after the investment period, which means like after something like three years you will get cash flows so you're not illiquid in the sense of not receiving any cash flows but you are to some extent the liquid as there is no highly liquid market or not highly with the secondary markets for those types of assets so so that's a big difference. Also, I think, a little bit incorrect the comparison of the private debt or private credit markets with the bond markets. So, so the wrong assumption from my standpoint of view is that bond markets liquid private that markets not liquid I think that's a nice conception. If you look at off the run so bonds that are off the run so not like in the first year of their issuance in the high yield sector you very often find very low liquidity for those types of bonds so so we would compare basically and not very liquid private debt market with a maybe also not very much liquid high yield bond market. Third, maybe mentioning is that there is a secondary market now building up. And the premier that you see in secondary markets are relatively high so so it has a high price to get liquidity in the credit market. But I think these these kind of spreads will come down once the market is more established amongst institutional investors there are signs for that but maybe we talk about that later and also don't want to steal too much time from Tim. So I would complete him. Okay, so maybe I'm going to paraphrase your question like how big should be the liquidity risk premium. And I remember when I first started sort of looking at the private equity industry back in the sort of day where when it was about 2000 when it means we really start just starting. People talk about 150 200 basis points a year for an illiquidity premium. And so therefore, by that basis, you know, these days that's about what private, what the buyout funds beat the public markets by very roughly. So you might say oh well this is, this is not attractive. It's not attractive because it's not, it's not comparing light with light because one's liquid ones illiquid. What I would say is that this is an institutional market institutional investors have highly diversified portfolios. Most of them have five to 10% in in private equity maybe another few percent in private debt. Like, my question is, why do they need a liquidity premium at all. In the following sense that as long as they construct their portfolio sensor. There's going to be a lot of natural liquidity in that portfolio. And if they need to liquidate something and they've got plenty in, you know, Treasury bills or index, you know, index equity or something like that. I'm sure that many investors, particularly value the liquidity anymore the liquidity associated with equity. In some ways I think that there was a, or with public market investments, some ways I think there was a bit of a cult of liquidity that people really thought it was very like a traded on a minute by minute basis. And was a lot of institutional investors are investing for a very long time horizon and actually don't particularly want need liquidity. And so I, what I'd say is that it's true that it's, you make a commitment which is a very long commitment. And these things do throw off cash along the route and you're constantly having to make new investment commitments. Because they're not, they don't just hang on to the money for 10 years and give it back they are throwing off cash the whole time. And I would say that they're certainly in the, in the private equity space there is, there are increasing the large number of ways to actually achieve liquidity. You can sell your interest in the fund you can actually get intermediaries to, to let you get some money out by putting a preferred equity stake into the fund and you sort of sit behind it. There's all sorts of ways you can do it. But my fundamental question is, why, if I'm going along and talking to my university endowment and they say to me, you know, what liquidity premium should we expect from which would we would need before we invest in private equity. I would be in the single digits or basis points, not 150 200. I might say, we're maybe five to 10, if you could give me five to 10 basis points over for a university that's been going 800 years, five to 10 basis points compounded is well worth having. Okay, that's so we should really take a century long perspective. It depends which investors we're talking about if you're, if you're a pension scheme in rundown, not, but if you're a university endowment, why not. I mean, this kind of before getting back to Pascal I wanted to elaborate a little bit to relating this to what you were saying previously that you didn't see a structural break between private and public markets which in a way may seem a strong statement. Okay, so now you, you, what you just said, started making this clear. So you, you think about the possibility of one possibility of structuring and understanding where the asset class itself so that you know what to expect and so you match it to some of your needs. And second, I think kind of a related issues kind of that there is heterogeneity across investors and so kind of certain investors may have kind of more of an easy way to incorporate the private markets in their portfolios and others. Am I right. I think so. I mean, I think that you have to be, you know, you are making long term commitments to these assets that, you know, you don't know what's around the corner. And in 2021, you make a commitment to $100 million. And you then, you know, who knows what will happen in 2022, you know there might be a stock market crash there might you might find that that 100 million is a lot larger proportion of your portfolio today than or tomorrow than it was today. And so there are some costs that are associated with this that where you could get your portfolios out of sync and I do think that there are some, you know, there are that this is one of the reasons why most investors don't have huge amounts of these private assets because they are more difficult to rebalance. And I think what I would also depend a bit about. I think how you construct your portfolio, whether you have credit lines, or not what what David Swenson of the early down used to call non disruptive sources of liquidity is I think very important. It adds some complexity to portfolio construction, I would say, but it, but I think that it's still right to think of these things as essentially in the same asset classes that you know public and private equity are are exposing you to the same sorts of economic risks. You know, if, if bad things happen to the equity market bad things will happen to the private equity market as well and so it's, you know, they're both going to go down. Almost certainly, and they're the same sorts of risks so so certainly when I first started that I heard some people justify private equity on the basis of portfolio diversification. But I think that there's some argument to that with VC, because I think it's quite hard to get access to these days to, to publicly do to some of those new technology ventures which don't hit the public markets for a long time I think there's a there is an element to that, but I really don't see it in buyouts for example, I think most of the, if you wanted to get exposed to the same economic risks you could do it in the public market perfectly well. Okay, sure. No, that's certainly that sense. That's what venture capital is quite different from buyouts because it really addresses a different type of companies and with a different access to markets to private to public markets. Can I add maybe to what Tim correctly just explained I think there is there is really a big argument around this liquidity question and as Tim said, from an asset liability management standpoint of view these investors would typically not request liquidity in the short term. So to put it a little bit more generally, I would say what is really the utility and investor derives from liquidity. If he or she knows that he's got not going to use that cash for a couple of years so let me make a concrete example if you can invest an IRR of roughly 9%, which is the running IRR that we see in the market markets today. We all know that IRR is maybe a very bad performance measure as it is absolutely not relative to the markets but still, we do have this like 8, 9, 10% IRR in the market so if you can allocate capital to 9% mean or 8.5 median IRR today. Should you not be thinking in terms of reinvestment risk as well so so if you have an 8 to 10% return, don't you want to keep it for a very long duration in the sense that you would have to trade off reinvestment risk against liquidity premium. And then maybe the picture changes a little bit so I think it's important to also think about the liability needs that those investors have in the sense that they need to serve liabilities. Typically these investors are almost only institutional investors. So yes of course we should we should look at liquidity premium in the sector as well. But I think if we if we ask from a utility standpoint of you these investors really do not derive much utility from liquidity of an asset. Tim, do you have any reaction to these or can we. I think that I think that's, I think that's broadly right I mean there is a there is a question in chat which is I think a good point which is sort of you know the fact that the liquidity, the sort of relevance of liquidity is when does it give you liquidity when you need it. So that is, and that is sometimes called liquidity risk in the sort of academic literature, and, and I certainly think that there is, there is a sense in which you know the, you can't, you can't rely upon certainly that you're not necessarily going to see the cash when you give you one example of that you know we would really want I think private equity funds to invest in equity when there's been a big market for right so that you might well say that's the real opportunity that you've got. And so it might be that at that point in time when you've had a big market for or you've had a liquidity crunch like the financial crisis, you sort of don't want the funds to call the capital. You've basically given them control of your checkbook, because if they send you a request on you know the day after the financial crisis in 2008 and they send you a request for $10 million you yours, you know you sort of have to send the money. And that could be a very good long term thing to do, because that's when the opportunities are but it could be a very bad, it could really be painful for liquidity purposes and so I think that there is. That's why I say that I think anyone who goes into this has got to realize that this could be the that there could be big calls at times when you don't want it to happen. That's why you need to have a non disruptive sources of liquidity a credit credit lines, you know, ability or in your mind you're prepared to maybe in the short term run down other sorts of assets maybe go a little bit overweight on some assets, and to be prepared to flex it if you were to say, you know, all the time we don't want to go beyond 60% equity or something and it's, and we view that as a big policy constraint, then you should be very careful about private equity because it can push you about that. But my my basic point is that you can you that I think after the financial crisis most institutional investors have got better at thinking about the liquidity risk, and much of that I think can be mitigated, I think. Yes, and I think that with this points you already addressed a question by Patrick from APG which was saying the ability to generate cash when needed. That's right, that was what spontaneous. Yeah, that's what I was trying to answer so I think it is a good point, because it's not, it's not liquidity liquidity isn't just throwing off cash it's throwing off cash at the right time or demanding given that you know the capital doesn't get called until an opportunity arises and you the GP really does, you know control your checkbook or control your bank account because it will put money back into your bank account when it wants to, and take it out when it wants to as well. Pascal you were about to say something, or I about to think about that. Just to mention for because I think it's interesting that the premier that we see in the markets that you pay when you when you basically dispose of those assets sell them early in the secondary markets is something between three to six 7%. So I think there is good research on high bond markets that have comparable liquidity cost. So, so I think. Yeah, we have talked about it but I just want to say this this liquidity risk is there that's obvious and also the cyclicality of capital calls is a big challenge as Tim rightfully mentioned, but it's not that it's a zero one game so so you can dispose of those assets, you just know exactly when that will be the case and what the price for it will be, and I think it's somehow comparable to high bond markets, especially in a crisis when everybody wants to run to high quality. You will have a big ticket to pay when you want to get rid of a high yield below investment grade bonds so so I think the comparison to public markets is correct but it's not that it's a zero or one comparison right, just an addition to the picture. Okay, let me let me bring up another question from from Martin Boons, who basically points out that given the very long time horizons wouldn't be more appropriate, compared in cash flow, rather than the terms year on year. When we make a comparison between private and public markets. I think I understand the question I'm not quite sure if we were going to. So, if you were going to look at the long term cash flows. You can, it's sort of getting us into the almost like money multiple sort of world, I think, and I may have misunderstood the question here but but essentially, you know what you get in a public in a private equity market is is remarkably sort of constant over time in my experience that generally speaking after all fees and carry for every euro you put into into a private equity fund you get between one and a half and two euros back in the median fund. So, you know, over long periods of time certainly cash is what people sort of care about. I don't actually know what the figures are for the public markets if you did the same sort of thing. I do know what the PMEs are which are doing pretty similar things public market equivalent returns because you are putting cash into the asset and then taking it out. But when you, when you, you know, whenever you get a payback from the private equity fund you did you divest out of the asset, and they're the, the evidence used to be that, you know, in the, in early academic studies including some of mine we talked about a three to 4% more cash over time, sort of discounted cash as it were, and, and you also. But nowadays it's more like one to 2% more. But again, I quite like the $1.50 to $2 on the euro is a very tangible thing which pays pensions and puts and put and pays professors. But, you know, I don't know quite what the equivalent would be I suppose you just should work out the equity risk premium over a long period of time and accumulate that. So I hope that's sort of trying to get at the answer the question I do think these long term returns are indeed what you should look at over the life of the fund. Yeah, yes, yes if I understand the question correctly I mean we should not forget and I don't want to get too technical here but the public market equivalent is nothing else than a cash and cash multiple with the cash flows discounted at the hand rate of the benchmark market. So in a sense the public market equivalent, which is above one so if I say an average a median debt fund has, has a public market equivalent of 1.08 this means you basically get exactly 8% cash on the table and the discount is to the market rate that you use to benchmark. And in that sense, I agree, yes. You know, looking at cash flows rather than liquidity is maybe more important under the assumption and condition that you really are not dependent on the cash short term. So but I think public market equivalent pretty much solves that question if I if I got the question right. So Martin, if you want to elaborate on your question or if you're happy with just move on there is another question which is related to to this comparisons of returns from from leave and ballet is what would be an appropriate benchmark to compare returns with the different private equity or private debt. Yeah, expert though. I mean I tell the equity side. It depends it depends what you're what you're looking at it in terms of the buyout sector, you know that many people go with a sort of mid cap market index. So, you know, 2000 or something like that in the in the US or a mid to small cap index in Europe is because the buyouts don't tend to be of the very largest firms and so you are sort of main market indices are dominated by by very different firms you know the as we see with the S&P 500. Having said that I suppose that you know if you were going to match it for risk that's what you do but there's also a big sectoral issue as well because you know there is the there's a debate going on at the moment I think about whether the extraordinary that returns to venture capital actually could have been captured by investing in the NASDAQ, which has got to obviously a very similar sectoral tilt to venture capital because was venture capital is not all technology it's got a lot of biotech and other things as well. It does have a technology tilt to it and the NASDAQ has been doing a lot better than the S&P 500 recently so it definitely matters which one you use. But I would say reasonable ones, reasonable public market comparators are ones that are matched, you know, on similar firms at a similar point in their growth cycle as it were and size and also to some extent by sector but it's it's difficult because different GPs do have very different strategies and you might find one fund which is very heavily into old economy stuff and the right benchmark or risk adjustment for that which is sort of what we're trying to do would be different. And in the future, we will have bespoke benchmarks where we'll know the each individual investment by the fund, and this is this deal by deals information is increasingly what investors wanting to know for precisely this reason that you can sort of say, you can more easily assess whether the GPs adding value if you if you can benchmark it against sort of the closest comparable public firm or group of firms than just using broad benchmarks but we're we're in early days on that, but it is where a lot of the data providers are putting huge amounts of resources to provide information at the sub fund level at the level of the individual asset, which I think is also true in the debt side as well. It really, that is the new. There will be a lot of research happening on on that type of deal by deal put within the portfolio sort of analysis I think. Yes, if I if I can add. Exactly what I think I mean the real challenge and Tim said that already is is the risk matching within the benchmark and just to add to the picture the average private debt fund has a size today of 1.3 billion US dollars so these funds are no longer these small funds that do small tickets. So an average loan then if they have 20 to 30 loans is is quite large so it is also legitimate and I think to take public benchmarks. We would rather take maybe a leverage loan index or a high yield index. So if we take S&P 500 or maybe a composition of various indices. You do cover a lot of risk, but I think it's also true to say for example in Prekin. We do see portfolio companies today, and you can sort of construct your own benchmark index, but it is also sort of not so informative because we first needs to gain a broader knowledge as to where to these funds. So how to perform those indexes that we know and then maybe in a second stage we can go to to customize index data to measure our performance but really the risk matching on on the portfolio level is is what's going on now more and more but it's very difficult to get the right data. So in a way to understand correctly that can you see a move towards more transparency, more information being provided from the GPs up to LPs through through the data providers or directly. And so it is changing also that they may be be changing the nature of investments that are made and so kind of the type of returns that the industry can provide to asset managers. So if I can start on this one, because I'm just now, you know, conducting due diligence on a couple of funds, and it's a yes and no so if you look at the databases professional databases yes, they try to provide portfolio level companies such that you can get your information on portfolio, and no because if you then talk to those GPs, and especially the good ones and the large ones. They're very reluctant to give you all of their data so for example if you say look what I see on the, on the commercial databases this number can I please verify they will like, oh, you know, of our last 100 investments we will give you 10 examples. And then you say well how do you select the 10 and that's like okay you can ask for 10 and that makes some sample, but they will only rarely give you 100 transactions in terms of investment memorandums and all the details and partially because they're not allowed to do so at least that's the argument that these funds use so they say look by non disclosure agreements, we are bound to not to give out the company level data that that we provided capital to. So they also I think, at least for the very good funds they just don't have enough resources and time to give you all those details. We should know that, at least for the private capital private debt side but I think it's also true for private equity maybe Jim can comment on that there are huge amounts of capital flowing into the private markets. For the GP to give all the data in a time when they just receive huge amounts of investments into their buckets. Also economically doesn't doesn't make a lot of sense. Will it change over time. I am sure it will be a different market in five years from now and we will have more transparency on the portfolio level but right now to get the real risk profile of an underlying asset is quite a charge. I think this is one of those areas where the industry isn't doing itself any favors by dragging its feet about transparency. Investors have a right to transparency they should know what's going on they should be able to to look carefully at the full history of all the investments that were made. And that's why I'm here because this is in many of these industries it is a it's a fact that that the returns are really earned on a very few number of the investments in the fund actually it's only on the equity side. Obviously it's it's it's true, particularly in the venture capital space where one or two investments may return make all the all the profits it's also true in the buyout space. I know that because if you have a fund that is, you know, that is is not doing that it's actually turning out you know, 10% returns every year on virtually all its assets that's very different from one which is turning out 300% returns on two assets and losing money on the other. And it's perfectly legitimate for investors to want to to look carefully at the full at the distribution of returns. And, and I don't really buy most of the arguments about commercial confidentiality I have to say, I think it's more about not wanting you know that it's always nice to talk about your winners and you can bet in every single round and it will talk about the winners is a rare GP that says, Oh, we also lost some money on these these couple and this is, this is why we did is and this is why, and this is what we've learned from it. It's that's not the way it happens. I'm afraid in most in most marketing documents that are put out there, but I do think that it's a logistic that transparency has will increase over time, because the investors will demand it. Marco, if you if you let me share just one slide it takes five seconds. Can you can you see the. Yes. Okay, so this is this is like the outcome team was just talking about that these are two funds that we're looking at. And you see the first one that these are gross IRS at the portfolio level. So this would be a fund which has made 284 investments. And the red bars are loss making investments at the portfolio level and the green on the blue bars are positive returns measured as gross IRS you see the green bars within the credit bubble or GFC. The blue bars after the GFC and underneath that the same picture for another credit fund, which basically was only founded after the global financial crisis. But what you can see is there are very large returns after the crisis, especially for the second fund, and you can also see that the returns are quite balanced what Tim just said what I completely support. So you would have so we call this a win loss ratio only 1.4% of all investments would be negative and only 3.6 for the second fund still a good number I believe. But we see the opposite as well so we have just looked at one fund which had a 250% return on one investment and maybe less so successful on other funds so I think it is really important to look at at the portfolio when you when you speak about a private debt fund return. Very interesting very interesting picture this Pascal indeed. And but I mean let me ask both of you something on what you just said that which team mentioned basically you were saying that investors should know the way that gps generate returns whether through kind of a few big winners or kind of a more equally distributed type of set of companies, but this does it in a way imply that you're thinking of a relatively stable way or style or ability to capture returns by gps that doesn't change over time. Yes I think it's partly about performance persistence, you know that if you if you were going to say do I have faith that this fund is going to do in its next fund, as well as it did in its last fund I would want to know what the distribution of the returns was in the last fund because if they're doing this sort of stable investing, and they, they've managed to do that on 20 investments in one fund and you probably got a high degree of probability that they're going to deliver it in the next fund was if they're all over the place you know and they had a couple of real outliers, then I would want to know who was responsible for those outliers, which person in the fund that come up with that idea, you know both the good and the bad, maybe the bad ones, they're not there anymore but the good ones, maybe the people who did the really great deals aren't there either because they've gone on set up their own fun, or something like that so I would want to. You know, I think all sophisticated LPs try to get this information, because they're trying to, there's a lot of change and your development of spawning of new funds and things like that happening and so you know it's quite important to track the deals to the individuals to the performance, and not just think of this as being, you know, there is a brand associated with a, with a fund manager, and just invest in that brand. Don't worry about what's going on underneath the lid, you know, you should take the, take the lid off and look inside I think. That's how you want to interrupt you. No, no, no, you didn't. I was just coughing, but at least I can give you a thought, which was on my forehead. I think I couldn't agree more to what Tim is saying so of course investors must know the sources basically of their returns, but I just wanted to add, can you tell me which European bank gives you the credit portfolio details. If you buy the stock of a commercial bank. So just adding to the picture yes of course the private market industry is very opaque and new and generate returns. And yes I agree we must know the source of returns, exactly at the level of detail that Tim just mentioned which I don't want to repeat. Still, very often times investors are much harder on debt funds or equity funds let's say, then they would be on a publicly listed bank entity. For example so so we have a chance to talk to the top managers which I've typically worked for. You know the Morgan Stanley's Goldman Sachs etc banking world prior to changing over to a debt fund and these are top people. So if you're an equity analyst and you ask for the credit portfolio of a commercial bank, you will receive half of nothing from them. So just to you know to keep the apples to apples comparison in the right place but I agree we should know more about the source of returns of course. And this in a way this this type of granular level information means also that the asset managers themselves as a steam was hinting need to develop the, the capabilities to do so to interpret the information, which is which is an investment and that's something sort of really as its cost and its benefits. But do you see that kind of this is also a trend in the industry that asset managers tend to become more sophisticated than professional at this level of information interpretation. I think there's, I mean, I don't think the asset managers themselves necessarily have to do it but there, but there are intermediaries that there are data providers who are definitely doing this because there's, there's real benefits from the sort of many to one relationship that, that you want to have, you know central almost like it's not just the funds I investing I'm interested in and I'm also interested in the funds you're investing in and Pascal's investing in like, and so I think that if you look at the big data providers, they're putting huge amounts of effort into doing this know a lot of the data that we use in academia comes from places like Burgess where they have huge teams who are now dedicated to, to gathering deal level data and and tracking a lot more metrics over time so I think you know that there's no doubt that the investors are going, I think they're doing that because investors are asking for it. So I don't think the investors have to do it themselves but they have to, they have to access that data somehow by, by access to date. Yes, and how about that Pascal. Yeah, I think, I think it's basically the same challenge for these gps. We should still also not forget that that some of these gps are very much providing some sort of idiosyncratic transactions so so they might have five to 10 excellent deal negotiators and deal makers so I agree to Tim that you should be able to track the deal makers that you have, but it's sometimes also not the case that the loans alone or credit is a credit so they're all sorts of contractual arrangements that they have in those funds. And they are or they provide good returns because those who structured and negotiated those terms are really good people sometimes not always but sometimes. So there is, there is a large idiosyncratic, I would say firm specific or GP specific structuring and negotiation asset that these gps have. And in that sense, yes they provide more data but also it's kind of difficult to standardize that data, right. So in the sense kind of there is, there is a premium to competence whether it's kind of in house or outsourced and provided by specialized companies which have access to large amount of good data. And it's a very dynamic industry in that sense, we can sometimes kind of, I think that maybe people have this some people have at least this perception that private markets are something which is kind of as this very long time horizon is kind of it's a big elephant but I mean here we are seeing that it's an elephant with some gazelle type of features in a way. Let me let me kind of move and let me also say remind to the audience that kind of questions are quite welcome in the chat please don't don't be shy we're happy to include them. But I mean let me try to kind of moving from looking backwards to to looking a little bit forward. Since also time is flying. We're living in very challenging times, economically and financially that we have seen how the pandemic is clearly having strong effects on supply chains and the way that trade and finance are delivered. The banks seem to be changing their attitudes inflation seems to be coming back. How do private markets in that sense offer an interesting investment opportunity in conditions kind of, which are very different, different from the 20 years of great moderation that we have been leaving so far. Do you see major challenges and opportunities ahead or kind of you think that the industry kind of the private markets in a way are now established and they will continue there in the same way their role within for the asset management industry. Yeah, that's a tough question. I think I mean my my general view is is that you know these these markets tend to go together as I said earlier so you know I don't think you should think of private markets powering ahead if this you know if the if their if their native markets are doing really badly. And I would say that, you know that I've been constantly surprised at how low, how long the low interest rates environment has lasted. I can certainly see there's obviously inflation happening at the moment, whether that is a one, you know a sort of shock effect of the of the pandemic. And I think that's what most central banks are thinking. And as a result we're going to have negative real interest rates for a period of time because I think the inflation certainly looks higher than the interest rate environment. Negative real interest rates are actually pretty good for let highly leverage structures. So whilst you might say oh gosh, you know, the interest rates maybe on the way out, which I, which I would have the economist in me says that must be true in the over time. I'm not sure that the, the sort of combination of, of, you know, slightly rising interest rates but maybe slightly higher inflation isn't sort of okay for the equity side I guess to maybe a little bit less on the debt and maybe a little bit on the debt side because obviously debt is, is not inflation hedged in the same way. I mean that ultimately I think this is partly about taking a view about whether you want to be an equity or not and it's not so much private or public I think it's, you know, do you think that the equity markets are going to be a good place to be for the next five to 10 years and that really is the tough question I actually don't feel qualified to answer that. It's all I'd say is I think most people including me have been surprised at how long equity markets have been going up for. I mean after all, equity markets were extraordinarily strong last year. And if you look at the one manifestation of that is, you know, again without wishing to look in our own backyards, you know, most university endowments have gone up 20 30 50% over the last year. And that's really been driven by the equity markets not private not just private equity but venture capital has been extraordinary anyone with very large venture capital returns it's done extraordinarily well. Would we have predicted that if we'd known a pandemic was coming along, probably not so I actually feel quite humble at my ability to predict this, but I think it's more of a portfolio construction issue than a public versus private issue. And the only other thing I'd say and again this is sort of, again, a bit more judgmental and I can't point it evidence too much support this but I do think when people look at the venture capital returns which have been extraordinary. I think a lot of money playing intervention capital essay, you know the older people are saying, you know, is this another dot com bubble which is about to burst and I actually don't believe that. I think we're living through a period of almost unprecedented opportunity for technology and changes in the, you know the source of the way that huge opportunities for economic growth actually. I am quite optimistic about BC, even though there's, you know, they're very large sums of money going into it. I don't, I'm not one of those who feels like oh gosh the returns were really high last year and they're sort of unsustainably high and they'll go down next but but I could be proved wrong so so please don't bet your pension on my advice. Yeah, I would of course start with same request some better pension, but maybe I start where Tim just ended his his thoughts. I'm also optimistic for for the private markets but for maybe different reasons, because we have seen many drivers of this of this market growth in the past and they're not not only driven by low interest rate, then yield seeking investors they're not driven by much more fundamental developments one fundamental development would be the eclipse of the public company so if you look at recent research and I think that's confirmed that less and less. It is attractive to have a publicly listed company for various reasons which we cannot discuss here, but the attractiveness of being public versus being private has also changed and it's less attractive to to capitalize your balance sheet with public money. So that's maybe one large driver. And then there are other drivers so we have the problems of pro cyclical bank lending which can, at least to some extent be avoided in the private markets we have regulation in the banking sector which really picked up increasingly in the last few years so just to remind that level three is just on its way to be implemented so it's not that we're at the end of a development we're in the middle of a development path and there is much more to come. Since I'm working in these work groups, at least on the Swiss side. I know there is much more to come on the credit side. So, so I think it's more than just yield seeking investors there there is a fundamental change from from public to private there is much more regulation to come for the banks, and looking at all you know like, you know the bank test shocks to bank equity and what they do. The banks have basically reallocated their assets to ask based lending so cash flow based lending is no longer on vogue if you like. And the gazelles as you as you called them I like the comparison to cut the gazelles in the private markets they kind of cope very nicely with that situation so they profit, they profit from those trends. Now coming back to your to your initial question. I think also this might be a demand driver for private markets so first as Tim already mentioned there is negative real interest rates. And yes, maybe even more so in the credit space fund level leverage is becoming a topic so why should a fund with negative real interest rates not not add more leverage to a very attractive asset portfolio. And adding returns from the leverage effect by doing that. But also on the other side, I think the monetary policy situation will create more pressure on the banking side I mean we have seen government bailouts of banks and I think there will be an end to that in the next few years we have seen. And basically that government bailouts leads to eroding values on different levels and this creates a lot of trouble to bank regulation, but also to the interbank lending markets to the interbank Lincoln markets will be a webinar on its own. Funding costs and as there are, you know, like, to some extent distorted what I expect interbank lending markets and higher funding costs these banks will face increased cost of lending. Whereas a typical debt fund is 100% financed or refinanced by institutional investor money so they don't have the regulatory pressure, they don't have any leverage constraints at least not regulatory leverage constraints. And I think this will further increase the demand for private market assets. Thank you Pascal and so in. Let me ask to both of you, the following kind of it seems that kind of you seem to, to sort of agree on the fact that public or private is to some extent an issue of structuring in terms of the investors portfolio. So it's not such a big issue so is this kind of good news or bad news for the GPS and kind of, and people in, in, in the sense that it seems that from what you say one interpretation could be that asset managers would should find it relatively not simply not simple but accessible to enter in in into private markets in with with large allocations. If they are willing to pay the cost of learning of learning or outsourcing some some knowledge. In a sense, would you foresee a possible very large growth of private debt and private equity amounts managed or not. I think over time. Yes, I mean that's what's what that's what we've been seeing. I mean it is more complicated if you're having to enter into partnership agreements typically you need a better legal capability. You, it's a bit more difficult to monitor, you know, the due diligence is quite, is quite significant. So I think that it's not that, you know, some, some investors I think feel like they have an in house capability to do that others will go via intermediaries I think that sort of modern day fund for what we might call funder funds they're sometimes called solution providers now or the like who can do this at scale makes perfect sense, having intermediaries who can do that. And so, I think in general, the costs of going into private markets are going down, even though the cost of private markets is still high. In other words, in terms of the fees and the profit shares. So the, the end of the day, it's all down to returns. Because if the returns aren't good enough to pay those costs, or if competition gets so hot that the returns go down and then the, and the net returns aren't attractive. And, you know, that's what that that that will be the, the thing that constrains this industry, essentially, or whether there's innovation on the cost side I very much hope there is I think there are some different models certainly on the equity side, where there's no particular reason why the 1990s or 1980s to and 20 model needs to persist. Yes, yes, agree. But let me give some numbers on the credit side to these thoughts, maybe to think about the equilibrium or so. The credit market today is like 1.2 trillion us dollars. And it's always interesting to relate that to something we all know. And I guess almost everybody maybe in the chat here in the webinar knows that the leverage loan markets in the US is something like 1.3 trillion. So, it's not that the credit market as we see it private credit market is is a market, you know, in its in its early development. It's a very large market already so it compares in size to the US leverage loan market, for which we have by the way much more research the US high use bonds market is 1.7 trillion. So we are talking about about market sizes, which are very much comparable to private debt. Let me just share one slide here to put that also into perspective. Can you see the chart? Yeah. Okay. If what Prekin has asked here in the poll for different asset segments, let me just go to pension funds. So if this is right, Prekin asked, okay, from your today's asset allocation into credit, which is roughly 2%, let's say, where do you want to be in the near term future and these pension funds said we want to go up to 5%. So, knowing what the pension funds asset tools are in size, if you only look at the US, this would mean an increase of the credit market by 500 billions. So, so this is already like 30 to 40% increase of the market in the near terms. So I think, yes, it is true to say that the market is already quite large. But, you know, what if all the other asset allocators also maybe allocate some of their money to private markets. So I think there is a lot of room to grow in the next few years. And it's a quite important market already. Let me kind of push both of you back a little bit on this in the following way. So if the private markets were to increase so dramatically as you seem to think could happen. Can these be a very strong pressure on the managers of these investments to deliver value. Would there be kind of enough quality and talent that could be deployed over kind of a relatively short period of time, or is it something which is really going very constantly but more slowly. What do you expect. Hello. Yes, please. You already had, I think I wanted to ask Tim because he has the longer time series with private equity. And I think he's going to explain in more detail than I can that over time the returns have become less stable or, or maybe for segments changed over time but I leave that answer to Tim and then I can come back to credit if there's anything to add. But there's no doubt that, you know, if money, if investors pump much more money into these into these funds, they've got a bit of an issue which is, do they do more deals, or do they do bigger deals. Generally speaking over the in the, certainly in the buyout space, it's been bigger deals. And so the money, the money has been deployed in bigger deals and it's not been too hard to do that because they have, you know, they, it just sort of expands the universe of companies who can be subject to private equity involvement as it were so it hasn't been the biggest issue. I think those bigger deals are lower risk low return in general. Low risk, lower risk low return is good. There's perfect mark, you know, there's perfect demand for that. But I think it's been, it's been possible to do that, whether the, on the venture capital side, I think it really does come down to the thing I was talking about earlier which is, are there lots of innovative opportunities at the moment. And that's where I'm optimistic because I think there are. There are all sorts of opportunities I don't need to go through them the normal candidates in the AI, your AI, biotech, you know, autonomous vehicles, you know, lots of different things, lots of different areas which can sort of which will change life and will change the economy and I think those are the places where a lot of capital will be will be invested, not all of it, not all of it profitably I mean after all we've only got to remember the clean tech sort of led to lots of good innovation but not great returns for investors sometimes these returns are more on the, on the consumer side. I say one other thing before I finish, I think that the other thing that we haven't really talked about for a bit but he's going to come into play a lot is the opportunity for investments in what you might call the carbon markets that you know that the demand for investors for carbon negative or you know sort of innovations which take carbon out of the help deal with with climate issues. I keep those separately from me from other ESG areas because I think the climate is the thing that a lot of investors are really focusing on. I think those are huge, and will be, you know, all sorts of opportunities there for funds to be raised which look, look very distinctly at buying assets which can then be sort of used to help overcome some of the issues with climate change. And then Pascal. Yes, I agree again. I agree again. Well, I just wanted to say we talked about or Tim did talk about the persistence very shortly. So the study that I just did with a colleague is like, we find high persistence so it's statistically significant across all segments. So we find this persistence in a GPS performance from one to the next to the next fund. And I think this is a little bit different with some of the private equity sub strategies of which Tim knows more than I do. But I think this was also only detected over time so I think persistence in the in the first few years let's say 15 to 20 years of private equity was quite high and then diminished to some extent for some other strategies, like venture capital I imagine but but maybe you can add to that later on. But I wanted to say in the sense of Tim. I think yes, low risk low return might be a possible development in the credit markets as well. But I think the investor is is is advised is has good advice if he really thinks about what is a typical private debt or private equity transaction and if these funds really go into the mainstream lending business. I think it's just like comparable to to to bank credit for example in the case of debt. We will not see any market outperformance anymore so so it's really maybe good starting point to think about the strategy of a GP and why he is able to generate access returns and then continue from there. So we must be careful to put it in another way that we don't label this like okay private markets always have a high return. It depends on what is done in the specific portfolio. Very good. Very interesting perspectives. Now there is kind of a fascinating question from Sophie manager that also relates to recent developments in regulation. And so he asked whether we should the regulation for investors and for retail investors somehow be relaxed and converge in a way so that we can, we should kind of democratize or allow more generalized access to private markets. In September, the next panel advise the SEC in the US to go in this direction, for example. And every now and then we have this type of calls for more better access for retail investor or smaller ticket investors to these asset classes. What are your views on this. Personally, I think in general, yes, but you have to think very carefully about the way that retail investors can get access to this because a retail investor is not like an endowment fund. Your retail investors might well have liquidity shocks need to liquidate their wealth to buy a house to deal with a family crisis and things like that. And so I think that there are good and there are bad vehicles to get access to private markets. I think that you know you, you, it doesn't make much sense to, or, or rather you'd have to really carefully about whether they could invest on a similar basis to an institution as a retail investor, tying their money up for up to 1012 years, getting cash flows back when, when, when only when the GP sent it, but there are other alternatives here. So, you know, for example, I'm actually on the board of an investment trust in the UK which has 50% private assets 50% public assets you can, you can buy shares. If you can buy shares in it, if you're in Europe, I'm not quite sure anymore, whether you can. It's a London listed fund. But, you know, that structure is a closed end fund, closed end funds are a good way to invest you can always get your money back on the day but it's, but you have to, you will bear some risk if the, if the private the private assets are only revalued every quarter, the public assets are done every day so it's a mixture. There's there's a number of these. Those are ways which you can currently get access. I think that some of the link ups between some of the, the big asset managers as you know that who are looking at expanding into private assets, all the, all the names you will know about the very largest ones are exploring this. Now, the regulatory question is actually as much about things like pension fund and so for example, should you be allowed to, you know, in your defined contribution pension scheme should you see some assets which are private assets, and I would say yes, but, but they should say loud and clear on the tin that you can only trade these periodically maybe once a year, or something like that and you should go for you should be very clear that these are not liquidity, you know, based instruments you know that they're sort of ones that you have to commit to for a long period of time. But in general I would say, yes, it would be good to to open this up but in a way which is your pension schemes are by their nature they should be in it quick because we're investing for the future. And you know, for more on the sort of not outside a pension wrap I think the things like investment trusts or other vehicles like that are actually maybe the next step to take. Isn't it a little bit of a contradiction, which can generate a false sense of security the fact that you invest in a, let's say in a traded fund, which investing in also in private markets. So that you can you think, as you said kind of I mean you can update the private values quarterly and that's also kind of a nominal update in the sense that it's still nominal until they're realized. I think, hey, yes, I'm kind of I have a daily price for this, which isn't in a way it's not really true. And so this may kind of my generate a sense of security yes I can trade them anytime, whereas kind of to make to achieve the full value you may have to wait quite some time. It's kind of a challenge. In some ways, but you can literally trade them every day, it's just you get the, you get the market price and the market price may not be the same as the net assets of the fund. So, you know, they that you're right that you have to, you know, these these sorts of vehicles you need to understand them. And, you know, if you're paying less or more than the net assets of the fund you've got to understand why that is. But I do think I mean that there are lots of different versions. I think there are lots of different ways that you could do do this from the fund structures which have sort of credit lines or liquidity lines that are built into there which will allow people to trade. So this could make a lot of sense as well. What we what we've learned I think over the years is that like you sits type funds you know the, the, the, you know, EU regulated neutral funds if you like, which allow a small slice of private assets are, you can allow a very small slice because otherwise they can blow up and we saw that in the UK with the Woodford funds which were the sort of, you know, the, the, the nadir of this type of decision. But on the other hand we see it happening in the US with the big mutual funds there. They're big investors in venture capital and the like now. It seems to work sort of okay. Maybe you could start expanding that a little bit but you might need to then take the reduce the amount of, you know, whether you can trade every day, or you have different asset classes which say, well, for the, for the daily trading one we're not going to invest in more than 5% of private assets, but for one which will go up to 20% you can trade every three months. So I think you have to accept that there will be trade offs here. Definitely. Pascal. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean much much is already said but I think I'm, I'm, as a Swiss it's very hard to be non-democratic so the question was should we bring more democracy into this asset segment I think it's hard to say no but I would rather say no then yes. Why is that? I think the only legitimate way to, you know, to structure this asset in a sense that it is more accessible to smaller investors in my opinion would be to structure it for liquidity. So to the extent that we search more liquidity in the market I think that is a good thing to do. And then on the other side if you put a wrapper whatever the form of the wrapper is be it a listed fund be it be it whatever can be an asset token etc. We have to be aware that typically a GP will not even let you invest into a fund. If you have a retail sort of profile so it might be that you have a big chunk of money that you allocate in a structure that is then recognized as an institutional fund. But we also have to be aware that that all of the banking regulation which we see in the market goes exactly into the opposite direction. So every thinkable risk that a retail investor could face in its, you know, most imagination he or she could have is tried to be eliminated by paper regulations rules, checks and balances. So I think while while there might be more liquidity by some structures for institutional investors. It might be too early to try to democratize those assets there are plays in the market. Tim knows them there in the financial times almost every second day for private equity and their big argument is let's democratize private equity. It might be but as as we also said there is a parallel development between public and private equity markets and debt markets. And if the public markets, you know, have a crash. The private will also have to some extent a crash, and we will say we'll only then see how retail investors might react to those sorts of assets but let's say I'm skeptical skeptical. There are other structures that will allow investors to go lower in terms of ticket sizes typical private debt tickets for a GP is 10 million upwards, maybe five if you're a good negotiator. But to go down to 1020 30,000 K for an investor is really an ambitious target. If this would be the target so I would say one has to be very careful and consciously exclude retail investors. They are protected by a very knowledgeable manager which might be the pension fund manager for example knows what he or she does. So I would really delegate that decision to a professional manager. And then yes if there is no need for liquidity or by construction, the investment vehicle is not liquid, then I would be positive but not otherwise. So time is getting close to our ending time so let me ask a final question which goes back to the, let's say the mission of the table Institute for private debt which is bridging research and practice and so let me ask the speakers were quite active researchers. What do you think that research will bring in the next few months and years to practice in terms of new results and new ways to kind of think about the way that are operating. Is there something that you can see coming. I mean, I, since it's, I could come up with lots of different examples but I think the one that I would focus on is I think that over the next few years will get a much better understanding of risk. I think we've got a lot of good understanding of return and relatively little good understanding of risk, and I think that will come through understanding the getting this data at the level of the portfolio at the level of the deal. And I think that's where the biggest advances will be made which will be of relevance to investors and industry. Well, indeed I mean that it's a job market time for finance departments and and yes as I was actually looking at the job market paper by a candidate was exactly doing this kind of trying to quantify risk at the individual company level so that's definitely going to happen. Pascal. Yes, I mean let me remind us that we have a 1.2 trillion asset class, I'm speaking of private debt, which has almost no research available to the investor even if it's a highly professional institutional investor. So yes we have a good understanding or a start to have a better understanding of returns we have not so much a good understanding of risks so I completely agree to Tim. And we also should keep in mind that risk in in the private market area three levels there is a GP level risk there is a fund level risk. There is an asset level risk and at the asset level which is really what you buy in the end. This is almost the complete black box as of today. There are some data providers there are some, you know some studies, but in the sense that we could could really say that this is the market and this is how it is in a generalized form. There is much to do. This is why we have this research Institute and I'm sure that also Tim is highly motivated to research more on the asset level on the private equity side. And it will be interesting to see what commonalities we find between equity and debt, and what differences we might find in terms of risk analysis on these three levels but I agree risk must be explored in much more detail. Thank you. Thank you both so if let me see if there are additional any additional question from the audience that's your last chance to put it so that we can close with with an audience question if there are any. I was I mean we are kind of, I think that we have a very intense and stimulating discussion with lots of interesting inputs. And as table in city for private debt we are here exactly to bridge research and practice and we look forward to this is telling me correct me if I'm wrong Pascal but this is our last webinar for the current year. We'll be back next year with new events, bringing new research, and we have here in the audience some PhD students who are working on related topics. For example, and we hope to see you back soon. Thank you very much to the audience. In the first place will put the recording of the session on our website quite soon so you can go back and listen back to any passage which you think it's particularly interesting for you. Thank you very much team from coming through the channel. Virtually to join all of us and to all of you who have come from, I know from very different countries as well. It's, I mean, one good thing of the pandemic that we have had is to to make this type of events possible which would have been unthinkable just two and a half years ago, but now are kind of quite, quite effective and I think quite enjoyable. Thank you very much team thank you very much Pascal, and again thanks for the audience and see you in 2022.