 Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the session of CCTV debate. My name is Li Sishuan from CCTV. We are going to discuss the digital disruption of finance and internet finance. So internet finance is not the internet version of the traditional finance, but it's a totally new business model. And this totally new business model is changing the whole financial world. And we have experts here on the panel, so I would like to introduce the panelists with us today. Mr. Huang Yiping, who is a professor of the National School of Development at Beijing University, who is also sitting on the Monetary Policy Board of the Central Bank in China. And also, we have Andrew Penguin Hand, who is the Group Chief Innovation Officer of the Standard Chartered Bank, and also Ms. Tony, the Chief Executive Officer of Credit Ease, and Koba Kwan, who is Chief Executive Officer of Far Capital from UAE. So this is also being televised on the website of World Economic Forum. And the English title of the session is the Digital Disruption of Finance. So disruption is a very interesting word. Sometimes when we translate disruption into Chinese, it can be negative and positive. And so first of all, I would like to ask all of you, in the future, the traditional finance, do you think they will be totally changed? Please raise your hand, please, if you say yes. You think it will not totally be changed? It depends on the definition of disruption or totally changed. I think the essence of finance is the same, but the format will be changed. So Iqbal, I would like to ask you, Iqbal, you are a banker. Now you have become an investor. You used to be a very experienced banker. You are working for HSBC. You are the founding CEO of HSBC Amina. And so you mentioned that technology is democratizing the world. So why? Technology is helping the banks serve their customers better on a day-to-day basis. But it is also opening up new opportunities for financial intermediation using the technology. But my own view is that the banking model, as we know, will continue to exist till the business design under which the banks are supervised and controlled is changed. So you think the old soldiers, they won't die and they wouldn't fade away? They would not. They would change, but they won't fade away. Andrew, you agree? I agree with what he's saying. It's true that banking is at an inflection point. And a lot of people think it's being reshaped by regulation. And that's only half the story. The other half is technology. It is a key enabler for banks for digitization and innovation. And I think in the next few years, the way we know of banking will change quite significantly. And I think there will be a lot more collaboration between the banks and the technology that is going forward. But it will continue to exist. We are saying that the form of the bank will be changed or may be changed. And so we are talking about commercial banks, order capital, market. And so I was told by one of my friends, Vera Nekamas is a US episode. And they are trying to make that TV episode into a movie. Then they have kind of a crowdfunding on the website. And if you donate US$1,000, you can visit their studio. And if you can donate US$5,000, then the key actor will announce your name in public. And so through crowdfunding, they gathered US$5.7 million. So it's actually a kind of a crowdfunding for making a film. And equity, crowdfunding, and all other new forms of internet-based finance. Do you think that will change the capital market, like PEE, like traditional capital market functions? So Ms. Tang, I served as investment banker and also PEE. So crowdfunding is a new way of funding. It can enable more people who are interested in participating in innovation and entrepreneurship to do so. However, whether in the United States or in China, crowdfunding needs a leader. Actually, a leader is someone who is experienced PEE expert or investor or venture capitalist. Still we need a leader. So still we need a leader to lead the crowdfunding. So it's not a pure crowdfunding, at least for now. I don't know whether in the future big data will change the world, and any individual can use big data to make a good analysis of the situation. Professor Huang, I read some of your articles published on the website. You mentioned that the internet economy in China is leading the whole world. Does that mean in China those traditional businesses or traditional industries may be disrupted more fiercely by internet? Yes. The third party payment or micro lending or P2P, actually we have seen that in China, because we are quite advanced in internet finance, we are leading the world in changing this industry. You mentioned commercial banks, investment funds, and they are facing a lot of difficulties and challenges. And the essence of finance is funding and investment. Try to bridge the investor and the issuer. We are trying to solve the asymmetry of information. Banks, financial intermediaries, capital market, they are trying to solve the problem of asymmetry of information. So whether internet can help us solve the problem of asymmetry of information, it is the essence. Whether internet finance will change everything. Actually, internet has a huge amount of advantage in solving the problem of asymmetry of information. Yes, Tencent or Alibaba, their platform, actually they rely on two advantages. Number one, actually through mobile terminal, you can find your transaction target. Second, data, they get the data. They have the data and analytical capability. And so Alibaba and Tencent, they use their data to understand the market and to make a good analysis of the market. We should stop just to pause for a minute. Shall we start? We resume our session. So just now we are discussing the different formats of business models, P2P. For instance, some traditional financial institutions, they are trying new business models by adopting internet-based technology. I read an article which is relevant to standard standard chartered. So dianrong.com, P2P in China, get C-round financing. And standard chartered is the leading investor to make investment on that.com. So I would like to ask Andrew, why P2P? Why are you making investment in P2P? It's a strategic investment or it's just a financial investment? So as an organization, we do invest in a few mature and growth stage companies. We look for companies that offer some strategic differentiation. And in this particular case, we like their business model. We like the fact that they work in collaboration with the banks here in China. And the most interesting aspect is I deal with a lot of companies in Silicon Valley in UK and in Asia. And we find that while some of these technologies when they are developed in the US, they tend to be very, very developed country-centric. So when we try to adapt some of these in our emerging markets, in our footprint in Asia or Africa or Middle East, they don't necessarily work very well. They're not very suited for dealing with multiple currencies. They're not very well suited for dealing with markets which may not have a credit bureau, a different infrastructure. So a lot of companies in China are perhaps more suited for the emerging markets environment, where the credit infrastructure, lack of bureaus, et cetera, is more appropriate. So we do look at both options, both models. You are the chief innovation officer of Stenchheart. And then for a big banking group like Stenchheart, currently you probably have your commercial bank and you have your investment banking arm and you have your direct investment arm. You're the innovation officer. And so to put it more innovatively, in 10 years' time, what kind of bank will we see? I think in 10 years' time, most of the banks will look very different. Most banks will probably collaborate and partner with a lot of technology companies. And they will be much more customer-centric than they are today. They'll be using more technology. Customer will be at the heart of everything that's happening. And the technology companies will also work with the banks a lot more. While US and China do offer very large markets for companies to operate on their own, they also realize that when you go to smaller markets like ASEAN or Middle East or African countries, it's very difficult to figure out the environment in those countries. It's very difficult to figure out the regulatory landscape and partnerships work better. So we'll probably see banks which are starting to look a bit like technology companies and technology companies that are partnering with the banks. See how they're doing, ma'am. I think in the future, what we want is to agree that the technology companies will be doing the fintech research. But banks across the world will be choosing to change the model on which they work. So you could see innovation coming in, for example. In Ukraine, the private bank is offering Google Glasses for customers to look at their statements. You could see a small bank in a small country using technology to move forward. And two kinds of models would arise. One is those who are on the leading edge and those who are fast followers. If you are on the leading edge, you have the first mover advantage. If you are a fast follower, you can align the technology with a business model and a distribution platform, which Anju talked about the collaboration and partnerships. We mentioned collaboration for many times. But internet finance is not just a simple concept. We can use Google Glass to read financial statement. Or we have other stories, such as large banking institutions. They have apps, and they have some online channels. But are they the real internet finance in the future? I think it might be a diversified situation in the future. Today, the internet finance still provides services which are not provided by conventional banks. For example, those services to the micro and small enterprises, be it Alibaba or Tencent, they provide a lot of services which are not provided by traditional banks. Later on, they are investing in some technologies. We can see that even large banks provide some online financial services. Still, the user experience is different. Because conventionally, the large banks are to serve the large customers. Well, for internet companies, their target groups are not those wealthy, large customer base, but ordinary customers. But one thing is evident that with the internet technology development in finance, we will minimize the possibility of using cash. We don't need to go to the counter or we can reduce the frequency to go to the counter. So there are all kinds of possibilities for the transformation of banks. Large banks have their staffs and a lot of branches. They might be the advantage of them today, but not for 10 years' time. Today, when I was young, I still think about the treasured bill and the stock was issued in paper, but now it's all electronic transaction. And paper bills are becoming a kind of old fashioned. So in the future five years, what do you think will disappear? I think internet finance this term will disappear. Because after 10 years, the internet, the technology will become a inherent part of finance. So it will become finance instead of internet finance. Our understanding of technology transferring finance is, on one hand, technology-enabled finance. So technology will help to improve the current product. The other is technology-driven, which is to create the product which is non-existent before. Because of the internet of things, the big data, there will be more and better services provided. So we think that in 10 years' time, the internet finance will become a norm so that the term internet will disappear and will become finance. So maybe after a few years, if we still have this session, our agenda will be designed in a different way. I basically agree with Mr. Tang. Because internet eventually is a kind of technology. It's like ATM. And after ATM is invented, withdrawing money becomes more convenient. So internet, on the one hand, provides a channel. On the other hand, analytical analysis. But it doesn't change the nature of financing. The investment in banks in the last five to seven years had been in the area of mobile banking, online banking, more of customer-facing stuff. Whereas what we are going to see more of in the next five to 10 years will be also automation and digitization for the back office and the middle office. We'll probably see more use of artificial intelligence, machine learning algorithms, use of natural language processing for customer service, robot advisory for wealth. So we're going to see a lot more of automation in those areas to streamline the whole customer experience. And you asked about what will disappear. I think one thing that will disappear is the plastic that we use as a credit card. I think payments will get to a point where it will probably be using mobile phones or biometrics or some variables. And we won't see that much of plastic. But just some people will say, some people just love it, love the design of it. I think in the next five years, what would also happen is that analytics technology will come in together with psychometrics to create new form of score cards for the venture capital aspirants in the global markets and also for the SME industry. So already, for example, the Kennedy School of Government in the US has a SME scorecard and a venture capital scorecard, which is being used in countries like South Africa and others for the banks and the governments to partner into a program to fund SMEs and venture capital. So this is technology being applied in a major way. This will democratize financing for new ideas and new business models. So I see this as a big growth area. And to add a question, just now Professor Huang said that branches will reduce in the future and the artificial intelligence will replace a lot of human work in the future. We know that the large banking groups have thousands of employees, so where do these people go in the future? I think with the improvement of productivity, it's not necessary for everybody to work five days a week and eight hours a day. People can spend more time on leisure. Maybe we can rest for four days and have three days of work per week. Maybe their work will not disappear. I think the internet will help the finance to reduce the asymmetry of information, especially in China. Our financial system is still focusing on banking. It's indirect financing. Well, for direct financing, the proportion is lower. The big difference between these two is that direct financing need the investors themselves to do the analysis. But now the general public cannot do that. Only banks can do that. But if we have a big data analytical tools, we can help the individual investors to do the analysis themselves. And in this way, the indirect financing will shrink. Well, direct financing will have a larger proportion. I don't need the banks to help me or the intermediate service agencies to help me. I can direct invest. When I was having the financial course at school, we learned about asymmetry of information as well. With the internet help in the future, maybe we can have a symmetry of information and efficient market. So what will be that like, Mr. Tang? Our understanding is that at the end of the day, still we have to combine online and offline approaches. For example, some simple and standardized things can be done through internet. But come to think of it, some complicated, like insurance product or the taxation planning or even the inheritance of fortune wealth or writing a will, it's not very easy to do them through cell phone. So these service-oriented and customized services still need the human approach. So these services still need offline services provided by human beings. And also for SMEs and the owner of micro-businesses, take insurance, for example. They still need people's promotion. Now we talk about O2O. It might not necessarily be online to offline, just one way. Maybe it's a two-way and it's not two, online and offline. We mentioned P2P a lot of times. Talking about internet finance, I asked a lot of friends, especially the audience. People are very interested in this because P2P has a large exposure in media nowadays. But if I summarize the feelings of the general public of P2P, they have expectations, but they are fearful as well. They heard that they have a lot of profit, for example, 10% of profit, but it's also highly risky. How do you persuade the people to accept P2P? This model has a long-term history. At that time, back in nine years, it's not even called P2P. We don't even know such innovation existed in US and Europe. In early years, when we educated the market, people asked me, so what does P2P mean? What does it do? Are you banks? I said, we are not banks, and then people turn away. But today, P2P has already become an integral part of the internet finance in China, and China is one of the P2P market in the world. On the one hand, as Mr. Huang said, we have the natural demand to serve the SMEs and micro-business. On the other hand, today we can utilize technology to promote it. So we have two driven forces. What are the advantages provided to the customers as lenders? Even if they just have hundreds of thousands of RMB, they can participate in that before it was not possible. And secondly, you can choose your borrowers so you can scatter your funds into different borrowers. And for borrowers, before they were not encouraged by bank landings, but today, through the innovation technology, they can be covered. We have studied the moral issues of those speculators. So we would crack down on illegal financing. These are important things. With such regulations, there will be less and less people who escape the law. So be it a moral issue or a legal issue. Literally, P2P is a kind of platform. We can just charge a service fee instead of provide a guarantee. But in China, a lot of P2P lenders, they are not banks, but they provide guarantee and they enjoy the spread. Somehow, they work as banks. But in the future, we will try to avoid that. But the government's instruction do not specify how do we do it. So for credit ease, do you need to transfer or transform? The leading P2P players play differently compared with what you said, such as funding poll or principal guarantee. Starting from day one, P2P or at least the credit ease avoided that. We don't do that. Credit ease and other P2P pioneers. We just consider P2P as information platform. So with the government guidance, they would take care of a lot of moral issues and moral hazards. Even if you are willing to do P2P, can you actually control the credit risk? And we will also do anti-fraud investigation. So in terms of data collection and data judgment, we would also do more work. P2P is important. So when we talk about internet-based finance, actually the credit control is very important. And so in a big data age, we can score the credit of any consumers. And so for individuals, we have a different scoring system for the credit level of individuals. In the future, maybe we can have more credit rating agencies. And we are offering different dimensions of the credit rating or credit level of consumers or individuals. We have sesame credit. In the future, maybe we'll have a green bean or red bean sesame. Maybe one individual, it is not necessary for one individual to get a 10 credit report or a scoring report. Who should be entitled to have that kind of credit scoring work? Today in China, of course, the central bank, the People's Bank of China is doing the credit scoring. Actually, the Ali or the Sesame credit, actually they are based on the database of central bank. Of course, in the future, maybe the central bank or regulator or the government, actually government agencies, taxation, power grid, they also can use their own information. If we can pull together all these sources of information, we can judge the credit system, credit level or score of one particular consumer or individual. So in the future, whether we should pull together all these sources of information individually, it depends on the future trend. So do you think what will be your expectation? Actually, some agencies, government agencies, trying to pull together all these information. I think that the credit rating agencies, obviously, would play an important role. If you combine this with psychometrics, we get a better picture. But additionally, there is now software available which can take the central bank guidelines, compliance guidelines, know your customer guidelines, and feed it into the system. And they can independently validate if there is any violation. And I believe this technology, this is a fintech company which is doing this. This will change the landscape and will bring a transparency which will make P2P funding and all these new platforms give them greater credibility. And the key thing is to make sure that the government guidelines are adhered. And these softwares will do an independent check of that. So you said that technology, which is the Android. You're talking about technology. Android actually has a lot of a background of risk management. We're investing in any kind of algorithms in terms of scoring or risk management in general. So from a peer-to-peer lending perspective, not just China, what we also see in a lot of other countries is, first of all, what they are doing in terms of making credit available to small businesses and micro-businesses is really good. These businesses are now able to access credit from the marketplace lending platforms. And in the past, they were not able to do so because typically they're not the target segment for most big banks. And the P2P companies are also able to use machine learning, social media, et cetera, better. But there are just two risks that I do want to highlight here. One art experience shows that use of social media data, use of psychometrics, it's useful. And it provides an uplift to the basic credit bureau score. But used on a standalone basis without the bureau data or without the financial repayment history, it's not that predictive. So it has to be used in combination with financial data and the bureau data. The second risk is, even in the markets where the bureau data is available, the question that comes up is that if you are a platform and if you are just making commission income from both sides, why would you care about the quality of the loans? And they do care because the business sustainability, the ongoing access to liquidity depends on that. Because if the loans are not of good quality, then both the retail funding and institutional funding will dry up very, very quickly. But from a retail customer point of view, I'm not sure if the customers really understand the risk. It's slightly higher return for significantly higher risk compared to a bank deposit. And that's where the transparency, the customer disclosures, the customer education for the investors becomes very important. And that's where the risks are significantly higher from an investor perspective. Actually, our discussion reflect that internet finance is democratizing the wealth, as mentioned by Eqobo. It actually lower the hurdle. You are investor or consumer or micro business. Actually, you are getting more opportunities and access to this financing market. So people, businesses are not substituting each other. Actually, it's a complementary to each other. So we're talking about some technical issues. Now I would like to ask each of you in this context of internet finance. So we are talking about context or scenario. So in the 10 years, what will happen? What will be the scenario of internet finance? Maybe in the 10 years time, and this word itself will disappear. So Ms. Tang, would you please give us a scenario you have imagined? I wish 10 years later, if the term of internet financing has disappeared, however, it means the success of internet finance is achieved. Maybe a robot will help our customers to do wealth management. We have a robot advisor in the United States. In addition to robot, we still need offline, reliable, trustworthy partners who offer face-to-face services. So it's all and all, online and offline. So in the United States, when you enter into a scenario of a bank, it's like a cafe. It's like a Starbucks. It's like a coffee shop. And the people who are serving you in that bank actually is a very experienced banker who will ask you what is your experience as a user. So it's a kind of an experience economy. The banker will ask you your user experience. So maybe in the future, the number of days working for bankers will be reduced. And people only need to work for two or three days. Maybe the tourism will prosper. Not only internet finance, the internet itself, including robot, will significantly increase the productivity. We don't have to work so long except professors. Professors still need to teach. Other people don't need to work so many days a week. And we don't have to have a credit card in plastic form. We don't need to have papers printing out so many statements. And actually maybe in the future, cell phone or smartphone will disappear and something will replace cell phone or smartphone. And so some physical form of finance will disappear. However, the essence of finance will still exist. Consumers may no longer put their money as deposit in the banks. But they will put money into other forms like insurance, like debt, or foreign exchange. People can make investment and wealth management by themselves when the asymmetry level of information is reduced, when we have higher level of transparency. However, for high-end wealth management, we still need to have a face-to-face consultancy. But for simple wealth management, you don't need these experts with high level of expertise. The hurdle will be reduced. The threshold will be reduced. But now we still have to rely on cornerstone investors to support your project. But in the future, we will have more crowdfunding. Do you think this will be the situation? And maybe a lot of films are actually made by our friends, not by big investors. Yes, equity crowdfunding. We put our money together, but we still need a leader. We still need a coordinator to lead the investment. So for now, for this level of information asymmetry, the asymmetry of information level is still very high. And so ordinary people still need a general partner or leader to lead and coordinate the investment. In the future, if one day we can solve the problem of asymmetry of information, anyone who can enjoy the transparency of information, of course, we can do that. But it's only a dream for now. Maybe the technology in 10 years' time can help us change this world. Professor Huang, that the essence of finance will remain the same. People will still need the same services. But the way they are delivered and the channels will probably be different. Maybe people will be using virtual reality headsets to do their shopping. And then they'll be paying using some biometrics devices. But they would still be shopping and still be paying. And the banks would still be doing settlements and reconciliations at the back end. And if within the banks, the skills that are needed may change. There may be a need for more data scientists. There may be a need for more analytical skills. But you would still need people for the higher end personalized services. There will be democratization of finance. More people will have access to finance and banking. So maybe television will disappear. And I will lose my job. We don't need a master of ceremony. We need a robot. There will be more financial inclusion. In each area, firstly, democratization of savings will happen. More access to venture capital financing through the scorecard and psychometric analysis. Better KYC, better governance as a result of technology and software, which can ensure that small and large institutions follow the same standards and compliance. But I think one of the biggest opportunity in 10 years time is democratization of philanthropy to make this a better world. I think technology innovation gives us that opportunity. We are anticipating this very important future. Governance, as you mentioned, is a very important word. So governance level are different in different regions. And so with such rapid changing age, what kind of regulation we need? If the regulation is too stubborn or too tough, it will stifle the development. What type of regulation? Of course, we need transparency. We need due diligence. We need information disclosure. However, we need a balance. We need a lot of financial innovation. If we cue it very beginning, the regulation will make you any type of financial innovation at the very beginning. There will be no innovation. However, the most key is the system. How can we prevent the systematic risk from happening? Some of the problems are not a problem. If the product didn't work, consumers have to take responsibilities. So if no one takes responsibility, then the problem will be big. So we should have a bottom line. However, usually regulation is lagging behind vis-a-vis the innovation. Regulators usually didn't realize systemic risk is happening. So internet-based finance, one form, is kind of a hybrid business. In the past, we have banking, insurance, securities. However, internet finance is hybridting everything. One smartphone can do all business. There's no regulation on these businesses. However, in most of the countries, there is a segmented regulation. And we have regulations in the United States. So what will be the future of regulation? And we have a few understandings. First, investor education is very important. Investor education, if it's very effective so that market participants know what they're doing. For example, in the US, if there is an institution or a platform telling the investors that I have an idea can help you with your wealth management, then the investor should ask for their past performance. They should ask, what background do you have so that you can help me? But in China, the phenomenon is that always there are people who dare to say and others who dare to believe. So I think the investor education should be well done. For example, what each product is like, what is its risk, versus performance ratio. Also, innovation regulation need to adopt diversified approaches, not just one department or one problem. We need the central government, local government, industrial associations, media, think tanks, and eventually investors and the consumers. It should be an all-round participation. It should be an inclusiveness and wise regulatory system. So two things, on regulation, because of the new mixed business model, we need diversified education. Second, we need investor education. These are very important factors. Andrew? Digital revolution that's going on. The regulators are also feeling the challenge in terms of how to govern them. And we participate in many of those conversations in this space. And it's quite interesting, there was a paper issued by the UK government a few months ago where their ambition is to be the fintech capital of the world, I think, in the next five or 10 years. And in that paper, one of the chapters is on how do regulators need to evolve to support innovation, but at the same time balance their goals on financial stability, consumer protection, misconduct, et cetera. The chapter is called REC Tech, how the regulators need to work in the technology world. So we'll see how that pans out. But I think in the future, most likely, we will see regulators regulating activities as opposed to just regulating financial institutions. So if a non-bank is doing a bank type of activity, they will probably come under their mandate. We are already seeing that happen on the payments front in Hong Kong and in UK. And maybe that's how it will evolve in other places. So this point is very important. I think it's a very important point. So the target of regulation is not just the financial institutions, but also financial activities. This should be a very effective thought. So what about you, Mr. Khan? I think we start, firstly, from the policy perspective. Governments across the world have to choose between players or referees and empires. If government at the economic policy level gradually transition from being players to referees and empires, they will have a much more effective market driven mechanism. But this has to be a gradual process. But secondly, I think there is a fundamental reform of the financial architecture, which needs to be addressed. The segregation of the payment system from the financial intermediation, which has been called narrow banking. Both the Wickers report in the UK and the Walker report talk about this segregation, which used to exist as part of the Glass-Steagall Act. This is a financial, this is a must to reform, and we must get to that level. The way we are trying to get to it now is kind of in an ineffective manner through risk-baitage, through Basel III standards, that we are not getting there. And the third point is that we need to have a harmonization of regulations at the federal level, state level. And the fourth point, which was actually pointed out by other panelists, is education. Because it takes a long time to educate our population. I think taken together, we have the opportunity to have a deep impact on financial inclusion, democratizing savings, and philanthropy. So you have some similar point as Mr. Townsend's harmonization of regulation. Also you mentioned the education and its importance. This is a broad topic, but we have very limited time. We have touched upon every aspect of the internet finance, but in a light way. We'll leave the last 10 minutes for QA with the audience. If you have any questions, please reach your hand. Hello. Hello, my name is Dana. I'm a global shaper from the Caracas Hop. And I have a question. You were speaking about the 10 years and what are we going to see? And I was wondering, which challenge do you think we're going to see in terms of, the technology is not going to be the challenge, right? You're saying we're already there, we're getting there. But what about interoperability, digital alphabetization, digital inclusion, as well as, of course, regulatory frameworks? So which one do you think is going to be like the most important thing that we need to address in these 10 years to actually achieve inclusion in banking from everyone and to reach that internet in banking that we're talking about? And second, really quick, sorry. If you feel there's a balance in innovation in the fintech field, because we see a lot of innovations in terms of getting the applications being smarter for smartphones and these kind of things. However, for inclusion, after the MPSA and payment with SMSN, we don't see that much impulse, right? Or I don't know if you have a different perspective on this that you can share. Thank you. Can I? I would say that they are not mutually exclusive. I think we are going to see a lot of focus on financial inclusion. We work with a lot of telcos in Africa, and we work with companies in the US that need to pay partners in Africa. And a lot of that happens through the mobile operators. And in the payment space in almost every country, there's a lot of discussion now on interoperability. Because if you keep on adding more terminals at the merchant's desk, or if you keep on adding different types of devices, the consumers get confused. So we will see more and more happening in both of those areas. I think one of the challenges would be data, big data, or data application to help risk the asymmetry of information. With more and more data, we should consider the ownership of data. Do they belong to the platform, or who's the owner? In terms of security and convenience, how can consumers strike a balance? It seems that people born after the 90s would choose convenience more with their growth. And with more and more problems occur, maybe security will become a larger issue for them. How do we balance the two? Our understanding is that data should be owned by consumers. So that's the ownership of data. This is also a hot topic of internet finance, including the third party payment. This is an international issue, not just in China. So you think it should belong to the consumers? Yes, it should belong to the consumers. Consumers should have the right to ask relevant institutions to help them to create value out of their data. But in the process of operation, at least in current stage, it's not very well addressed. So Andrew, in terms of banking sector, banks also owns a lot of data. What do you think of that, the ownership? What is the relationship between data and the bank? Data and banks have to follow a lot of regulations around banking secrecy, individual privacy regulations on what banks can or cannot do with the data. So that's another example of where there is an asymmetry of information or there is an arbitrage in terms of regulations on how there are lots of restrictions on the way the banks can use the data, the way the banks have to keep the data secure versus some of the non-banking entities. But I would agree that customer consent should be sought before using their data for multiple purposes. Yes, the authorization of consumers are very important. Yes, I think a personal right should be protected. But if all the data are owned by individuals or consumers, if we need to seek the authorization of our consumers at any time, then we wouldn't have big data analysis. We know some apps, sometimes you just randomly give out the authorization and some analytic tools can analyze whether you are a male or female and they can provide targeted advertising. So what is the baseline or bottom line? We're still exploring, be it individuals or institutions. We don't know where the line should be drawn. Maybe there are more sophisticated investors who pay more attention to security. It should be an awareness issue, but the boundary, it's like a game with the technology development and the change of financial product. It should be dynamic where the line is drawn. As Mr. Towne said, this is a global issue. Anybody who wants to provide additional information? Which will be the biggest challenge in 10 years time. There are thousands of fintech companies across the world who will address all the peripheral and integral issues around customization, customers requirement, and alliances will be built up. But 10 years from now, if we haven't addressed the issue of reforming the financial architecture, i.e. segregating the payment system from financial intermediation system, we will continue to have the cyclicality and systemic risk in the banking system. And from taxpayers' money, we will be bailing out the banks. And that has a big pushback for digitalization, for the internet banking, because when the crisis happened, central banks become very parochial, very protective. Those kind of barriers are not good for the democratization and globalization of savings, investments, or philanthropy. So to me, I think the biggest challenge is, how do we bring a narrow banking system based on ethical standards and have a global appeal for that? Till we address this issue, we will be tinkering around the edges. So that is the biggest challenge, which I feel. I think we just talked about all the dimensions, but all in all, internet finance is changing or reshaping the world. So to sum up, I found one sentence in our guidance. As a emerging business, internet finance need to be driven by the market. It should also be supported by policies so that it can have an enabling environment. So we look forward to this bright and healthy future. Thank you very much for your participation.