 Thanks very much. That concludes our day and a half. I want to thank Leonardo, even though he has departed, but also Rosario and Adriana. Thank you very much for a very interesting panel. It's sort of a microcosm of what the last day and a half was, which is the importance of various systems and institutions, and there's many moving parts within governments and international institutions on the ability to address illicit flows. I'm listed here as providing the summation. I'm not going to be as detailed as Heather was yesterday, despite how excellent her summation was. What I would like to do is take just a couple of minutes and talk about the themes that I heard running through all the panels over the last day and a half of what is important in this area. The first we heard from Fuget and Gene this morning talking about norms and standards, international norms and standards, and how important they are. And we and the Financial Transparency Coalition and other NGOs have been working on this issue for five, six, eight, nine years now, which is the transparency component of international oversight, basically automatic exchange of tax information, beneficial ownership information, country by country reporting, essentially the BEPS process that's going on at the OECD now. The domestic corollary to that is the statutory and regulatory framework that's required. You have to have the laws in place. The rules of the road have to be there, or there's nothing to follow and nothing to enforce. GFI does work on this now, working with governments, asking very basic questions such as, do you have a law against trade misinvoicing? Something extremely simple, but it's worth asking. If the answer is no, well, then there's a problem. So that's the first. Second is the issue of capacity in government institutions. Do they have the funding they need? Do they have the expertise they need? Do they have the technology they need? The institutions and the systems of government, and are they working correctly? Leonardo said here and Rosario said out front that the fundamentals in Brazil are strong. Brazil doesn't lack resources or financial regulation. It's another problem that Brazil suffers from, or there are many perhaps, but that's not one of them. Which brings me to my third point, which is political will, or the other way to talk about political will is corruption. We heard in the India panel today that if you're president of India, your by definition must have had to have played fast and lose with the rules to get to that point. So despite the rhetoric within the campaign against black money, there are some questions about the political will of that government to actually address it. You can be strong in one or perhaps two, but if you're not strong as a government of all three of these, if you don't have the rule of law in place, if you don't have the capacity in the government institutions, if you don't have the political will to address corruption, you're going to have an illicit flows problem, which brings us to the overview of this, which is the ability of countries to develop, eliminate poverty, and reduce the inequality in a particular country. Professor Nordin said earlier today that if you have, country has a limited fiscal space, they have an inability to build their democracy, and I think by, he didn't say this, but I think by definition, by connection, you have a lesser ability to address inequality. I think all those reasons come together on sort of what we've been talking about over the last day and a half, and I think gives us a roadmap for where we and other organizations need to go in the future. With that, I want to thank you all for staying to the end, joining us over the last day and a half. I want to thank the Ford Foundation once again, thank the GFI staff for their hard work of putting this all together, and thank you to all our panelists and moderators over the last day. Really appreciate all your efforts. Thank you very much.