 Okay. Well, we're coming to the close of, I think, a fantastic two days. I'd like to set the stage for our conversation today. This is how do we finance the investments needed for three interrelated challenges, providing modern energy to one billion people lacking access today, modernizing and aging energy infrastructure and mature economies, and investing in low carbon technologies including energy efficiency improvements, renewable energy generation, carbon capture and storage, batteries for energy storage, the charging infrastructure for EVs, IT for the grid to enable real-time electricity markets, and really the list goes on and on and on. And I think a little bit too often our focus is so much about financing renewable generation, but the reality is if we're going to be able to meet this climate challenge, we're going to have to have dramatic improvements in efficiency as well. So, of course, joining me in this conversation is Brian Moynihan, the chief executive officer and chairman of Bank of America. So, thank you very much for joining us. You just said a heck of a challenge for 4.15 on a Friday afternoon. Figure out all that. Okay. Well, I'm going to start off with this. I don't know if you can see this. Can anybody read this? Maybe people in the front row. What it says, it says, make the world great again. Okay? And it's the cover of Fortune magazine. And this is their annual change the world issue. This is for 2018. And I just want to start off with congratulating you for being named the number three overall company in their 2018 issues about companies that change the world. And you were cited for issues like your green bond program and your investments or your commitments to investments in low carbon energy and so forth. You were also named in the 2017 Euro money thing as the world's best bank for corporate social responsibility. And in particular, you are acknowledged for demonstrating that good corporate citizenship is good business. And I've heard you talk about the strategy about responsible growth. So I was wondering if you could tell us what what do you mean by responsible growth? Well, we have to grow because otherwise, I won't be running the company and my manager team will be gone because somebody else will be doing it. And we have to do it with the right risk and you know financial services has to stay within the risk parameters. But the most important part is you have to be sustainable. And that is the best place for teammates to work. And that's about how we benefits and and development and everything we do. We have to drive operational excellence, which gives us the right to spend the money to do the things that we're talking about here. And then we have to share our success with communities. And so it comes out that sharing success for communities. The bank that carries the name Bank of America started in San Francisco as a product of that community. The oldest part of our company was in from 1784. But they're all started by the communities to help make the community successful. And unless we create financing capabilities of all the list you made earlier, we're going to have a problem with the communities being successful. And so it comes out of that basic understanding that if a community is successful, we're successful as an industry and as a company. And helping make this change and financing it and using the creativity with your team and our team and all the teams out here, we can slay it. It's just going to take a lot of work. So when I think about responsible growth, I kind of think about sort of being in for the long haul and given all the pressures of short-termism and how do you navigate that road? Well, that's the work that we do. We as a company, we are short-term managers with long-term focus. So we're always, we have to produce the results for our customers, our clients, our capabilities, our products. But we have to be thinking across time. And so we are making investments, which are three, five, 10 years out all the time. And to help us become more efficient and run the company. And we're making investment in communities and at the same thing. So we'll do four and a half billion dollars last year in total monitoring community development. We'll do $200 million of charity. So since this management team is in, we've done $2 billion of pure philanthropic giving. We've done about 20 million volunteer hours in the last nine years. So you're investing long-term strategies to drive it at the same time. You do have to balance that. That's what management teams get paid for. We have to do both. And it's not a, or it's an and. We have to deliver these numbers. And we have to deliver long-term value. And I think most of corporate world's starting to really understand that. And so the same development goal commitment we've made through the International Business Council, the 150, 200 companies committed to that, they see it. And so the fellow here before from BlackRock talking about with Larry and thinking what he's done, what we've done and others, we're driving the world to say, you can do both. And we want the investors to see it. We want the companies to see it. We want the academic community to see it. And if it works, then I think it's a better place for capitalism to go. Okay. Thank you. So in the depths of the financial crisis, I believe you committed $20 billion to investments in low-carbon energy systems. And more recently, you've added $125 billion in financing for low-carbon and sustainable businesses. How did environment come to be so important to the bank? And what kind of work have you been doing towards those ends? Well, we started about 15, 18 years ago. There are commitments made. But coming out of the crisis, you could see the issue accelerating. And you could see that the real issue was financing. You need more money. There's going to be lots of technology and lots of ways to slay the dragon from that extent, the stuff that you and your colleagues work on. And policies had to change, but you just needed money. And so we said, we commit to the $125 billion. The first is how we operate. So we've taken our footprint down and down and down. The second is, how do we get our clients and think about what we do in a business? And then third is, how do we finance the change from where we are today, where we want to be? And this is not abrupt. It's how do you change? And then how do you get creative? How do you consolidate that change? So if you think you've got an arc and every year you can move it in, you improve the outcome. The financing is about how you start moving that arc around. So whether it's alternatives or whether it's technology that we've done to put money into technology research, whether it's moving from the worst to the second worst so you can move to the third worst in helping do that, it's all about that stuff. And so green bonds and getting people to commit, it's a range of stuff. So we're at $125 billion or $70 billion into it. At some point we'll exhaust that and then we'll make another commitment and drive it. But $125 billion at the time, 2014, 2013 or whatever it was, that was a big number. Nobody ever committed that kind of level of financing. And the question was, could we do it? And the answer is we are, which is pretty neat. And that caused other people to think about the commitment. Okay, well that's terrific. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. So even as clean energy costs have come down, you hear photovoltaics at $2 a kilowatt hour, two cents a kilowatt hour and wind, very inexpensive. And so the technology itself has come down. But the cost of capital for renewable energy still remains high. And financing costs have a big obstacle to getting some of these projects going. And what are you doing to lower the costs of capital for these projects? And could you give us some examples of some things that you think have been a success? Well, the key is to open up more and more vehicle, more and more capacity. And so if you think about some work we did leading up to our commitment and ultimately after our commitment leading up to some of the work that was an initiative at the UN called Sustainable Energy for All. And then ultimately, in the Paris, was trying to identify how big the gap is. And you can get estimates that we need a trillion or two trillion a year, whatever the number is. But at $300 or $400 billion or whatever is going in now, you have a big gap. And so the question is, you can't fill that gap. So the United States government budgets three trillion a year, how much can they dedicate to fill the gap? And they do a lot with that budget, Medicare, Medicaid. So the question is, how do you get more money at it? And so what we've been trying to figure out a lot is, yes, we put $125 billion in, but we need to access the balance sheet of our company, the balance sheet of BlackRock and other investors, that are the assets they manage. And that takes policy changes. It takes structure changes. It takes some creativity and some innovation, you know, securitizing. We were just talking with Joaquin Levy and others about the time about securitizing the spread between the cheaper alternatives today and the longer term and planning that forward and using that to invest faster. It's going to take all those types of things. And that's the strategic finance initiative here is really to try to bring together people who can figure out that ultimately it's going to take policy changes, de-risking, whether it's political risk or duration risk, which is really political risk. And it's going to take ways to bring that money. It's there and it wants to come, but it can't come in size unless it has a way to calculate the return it's going to get. So somebody may say, I take 100 basis points a year less on this. And since Jern's company could say, I take 100 basis points because this is good stuff. But if they think they could lose a principle, they're never going to do it. And that's going to come down in a project to the duration of the project, which has come down to political risk. And so that's what you need to do there. Some place in the United States, that's not the issue. It's really just kind of get the money fast up. That's green bonds and getting people to commit to use those proceeds to change their behavior, which then creates behavior in the market. And so I think, you know, it's tax, it's policy, it's de-risk, it's innovation. And then it's just talking to people and saying, you know, you can do this. And it's not going to, it's good business. So we do the 125 billion. I don't want to apologize for it. It is good business. That means I can do it over and over again. If it was charity, I could only do it once, maybe, and it would take me a long time to do it. But if I can do it as good business, it's good. So question on 125 billion. Did you see others following quickly in your footsteps? Did that sort of catalyze transition and the rest of the finance industry? Well, the finance industry, you're seeing people do it. But I think what's been interesting about something like green bonds, so we, we're the largest underwriter green bonds, but that's not the important thing. Since we started doing it eight, nine, 10 years ago, whatever it was 12 years ago, we did about 27 billion. In the year 2017, we did six as an underwriter. So what does a green bond mean? We underwrite it. We company issues the bonds, they go do it. They take whatever proceeds they get, billion dollars, a half billion dollars, a quarter billion dollars, a hundred million, and they then have to use it consistent with the principles that, which means they're improving their outcome, which may mean they'll go get clean energy despite their data centers. It may mean that they actually reclad buildings. It may mean a lot of things, but it means they have to take that money and do it. So our activation really enables them to activate. That's not on our balance sheet at all. It's the bonds are going to the investors. So investors are saying I'm doing good, good work by investing green bonds, but the real catalyst to change is the companies that issue them have to change. And so you've gone from whatever math would be for 26 billion over 12 years to six billion in a single year, you're seeing this accelerate. And if we can keep more companies saying that's how they express an operating company, express its interest in my, in what it does internally as financing companies have come and other my peers have come. So there's other green bond underwriters. We don't own the market. We're a substantial part of it. So they come and help facilitate even more companies. And so while we helped drive a truck through the structure, a few of us now it's pretty well done. And so you're seeing the markets, you know, increased in size dramatically. That 26 billion is just what we've done. And there's multiples of that in the market. Yeah, that's wonderful. I'm going to switch to a slightly controversial topic. You know, this audience where the all of the above we, you know, we're heavily engaged in long term relationships with traditional energy industry as well as renewable energies and so forth. And, you know, there are a number of activists who aggressively advocate for the elimination of all fossil fuels for energy generation. And Bank of America, you know, you clearly have many existing relate relationships with traditional energy companies as customers. And, you know, how do you reconcile, you know, one foot in both of these camps? It's, you know, there's people that say, why don't you quit financing all these things? So we quit and then we'll go on. So the question is how we can get people to actually change what they're doing. And so by having the leadership we took on coal, for example, we started people thinking about the question. We just didn't agree with what the activists of time were saying. We sat there and said, how do we help these companies that are in the business make the transition? So when we talk to energy companies and we're in energy still, you're saying show us the way you're going to make progress. And, you know, there's closures, one thing, but also the strategy is the more important thing. And if they're willing to do it, then I think they should be supported because that then gets the energy behind making the change happen. If you say we're just going to cut everybody off, that'll feel good for an hour. And then you'll sit there and say, wait a second, this isn't going to work and we're not going to have the power to have these spotlights on us or something like that. So we need to figure out how to make the transition happen. In our mind, you have to have a rational approach. How we look at it is, if people are willing to join the fight to make the change happen, we will support them. If they're not moving fast enough, the investors they have and potentially lenders they have have to put more pressure on them. But it's a conscious decision not to be absolute, but to be, you know, if we believe it's a change which is going to occur over time, how do we accelerate, how we drive it, how you do it. If you just say I'm getting out, that may feel good for the moment, but it doesn't have any impact on the company. When we talk to the companies, we say there is a way that as an investor we have $3 trillion of assets in our wealth manager platform, et cetera, and you say people can get out of your stock. It used to be harder, but technology allows them to do it. So you need to be showing people how you're going to help make the transition as our advice to them. They can take it or not. And so it's not only what we do with financing, it's how we describe to them the investors that we shepherd money for, just $3 trillion, how they're going to approach it ultimately. And so you're saying to them, we can construct vehicles of which you're excluded. So if you don't give us anything to defend you, it's not going to happen. So we make the decision on our ESG committee and everything, but the reality is you're making a decision by people who are actually trying to solve the question as opposed to ignoring it. If they're trying to solve it, you've got to help them. And then if they don't help them, fast enough they can go push them. And that's kind of how it plays out. And it won't satisfy everybody, but when you have a company that's one and two Americans that you do business with, believe me, we get one and two opinions in that, if you think about it. It's nature of the beast. Well, and I think also the reality is that energy is hugely important to our economy and if prices spike, if they go up really high and down really, it's so disruptive. So that maintaining stability with a more orderly transition, it certainly is helpful, I think. And you think about the great minds of the place like Stanford, and you think about Secretary Schultz and others, thinking about this, but having a rational basis to say, it ain't going to happen overnight. We need the energy. We've got to make it better, cheaper, less fossil fuel, and we've got to be relentless about it. And we can't be complacent about the duration of it. That's actually good to get the energy focus there as opposed to the absolutes in their term, because it's just not going to happen. And I live in Boston and you look out and the waves get higher over the Fano Hall and that stuff every day and you're saying, but at the same time, the power grid is powered by these billion LNG tankers coming up. And so in their tankers, and you're sort of saying, we got to figure out something that's better than this alternative, which is you see the impact on the harbor and you see these big boats come up. But we have to realize, you look around, there's this wonderful city that needs power too. So figuring that all out, I think, is what the talent and the organizations like this can help drive and environments like this and get an understanding that we got to make the progress. So there have been a number of studies which suggest that we need to triple the amount of investment in clean energy technologies to meet Paris goals and beyond. Are you optimistic that the world has these resources and that we're on a pathway to get to that point? Or do we need some significant sort of reset to reprioritize being able to achieve that? Let's say there's two questions. The world has resources. So if you think about the balance sheets of the banks and the trillions of dollars that represents the balance sheets of insurance companies, the operating expense that can be used to change energy consumption in an operating company, there's tremendous resources out there. What you can't rely on, not because they don't want to help, is the governments are zero sum, they're deficit games and so therefore they don't have a lot of extra money sitting around to help. So we have to figure out how the private sector has brought the task. What the government can help us is taking away risks and making concessions last, allow the transaction to take place. They can help on structures. They can help on incentives. But it's hard for them to bring the money because all the money comes in every year goes out and frankly more does, right? And so they aren't going to be there. But the way I frame it to get people sort of figuring it out, when we did the work with sustainable development, see for all, and that was sort of at the time, I think we said there was two, two fifty coming in a year and we needed a 750. By the time I got to Paris, you guys had the numbers to 400 and three, two trillion or something like that. The numbers have kept expanding, but the principle is the same. We've got to bring the balance sheets to it. And I think I think that's why this strategic finance initiative and things like that are important. We've got to figure out how within the construct of the energy policy, how you bring these initiatives to the table. And you heard Ya'keem and Tom and others talk about it in one of the earlier panels. There's a lot of creative energy going on. We've got to be careful. It's pragmatic and thoughtful. It can't be really just thoughtful and theoretical. It has to be very pragmatic, which the real risk is how to use development banks to truncate political risk. How do you get that balance sheet of the insurance company to come? Because then they won't be criticized for having that. How you have the RWA calculation, which is tedious bank language, but the asset costs come down and they can use some Mark Carney and FSB thinking about how you would reduce that in Basel. Can you give us a little credit, which provides an incentive and add some leverage? So the money is there. I'm convinced. The enthusiasm around the money is there, but it's going to take some accommodations to get it to start to flow in volumes, and that's going to become more from the regulatory, governmental, and frankly, the innovation. Well, that's great. Yeah, which sort of sets up the question that you kind of highlighted this, that the biggest barriers to these projects from a finance point of view is risk. That can be political risk. It could be market risk, currency risk, credit risk, operational, all these different risks. And there are a number of different entities that have a role to play. There's the role of the bank. There's the role of government and regulators. And there's the role of the development banks. And I just want to set the stage a little bit for you that I would say that two thirds of this audience probably knows very little about finance. And we've heard illusion. So picture that you're at a university and maybe a little bit of teaching. We've heard about blended finance. And I'm not sure that everybody kind of really gets it. So could you try to make that a little bit real for a real project? What might that look like? And what do you want from your partners and so forth? So let's compare two possible ideas, maybe as a way to think about it. Let's say that you're going to do something in the state of California. And let's say you're going to do something in Tanzania. Okay. Now, you have political upheaval and ballot amendments and everything going on in the state of California. But it's a democracy. It's lasted for a long time. And it's invented in this country that's lasted 250 years. So you don't have to worry about this question that when the commitment's made by a state of California, it will be it will be there. So if the state of California says either we're going to guarantee the tariff, we're going to give you the land, we're going to let you rent it for a dollar, we're going to whatever it is, you know, that's going to happen. That's not I shouldn't use any particular country because I say I've got an opinion, but that doesn't happen in some of these developing countries. There's, you know, even take Italy's had 40 government every year, I think, since the Second World War or something like that. So you don't know, how can you do a 30 year financing in that constant? So it's hard. And so an insurance company, it's got to go in and say, I'm going to do a 30 year, you know, $500 million permanent financing for a facility, and it can be an alternative facility, it could be a more effective facility, it could be anything you want, or a better water facility, whatever it would be. I'm going to do a 30 year financing. The issue is if the government changes, they'll take it from me. And I always hear people say, no, but we've been there. We had our bank taken from us in a lot of countries and give them back and take it. And so that political risk is really a duration of the investment. If you're only invested for two years, you take it. So California will get the money, it may or may not need it. And that other country won't get the money. And let's say, let's make it simple. Let's say it was two solar power plants. So they're going to get the money because when they agree to the concession, they agree that government's binding a government for the time. When you go over this country, that government can be gone and they'll walk away from it. So nobody will take the risk or else the cost goes through the roof. What we hope we can do with people who can go across, so Joaquin and Dr. Kim and people like that can go in because they never don't get paid in central banks and other development banks. They can go in and say, we'll take away that duration risk. We'll guarantee you that you won't lose the concession. Therefore, you're guaranteed whatever it was, the operating level revenues or and we'll guarantee you get that. We'll make that government. We'll stay, the next government live up to things. And for that, that'll bring a lot more money and a lot cheaper money because you can't price that risk. People then get into currency hedges and stuff. That you can actually, 30 year currency hedges are tough, but you can probably get people to work around that, but they can't work around government change. And these countries have significant government change. This is not a developed country. It's more of a developing country. It'd be arrogant for the developed country to say, oh yeah, we'll bring all the money to help us make this change, but you can't have, you can't use the fossil fuel dependent sources of energy because we think that's bad for the world, but we're not going to give you any ability to do anything else. That's arrogant or mean spirited by the rest of the world. So we have to help them develop power. And so we're looking for people to take that. I don't know if that's straightforward enough. So when I hear you though, I picture... So a blend of finances to get the government to put their guarantee on it, then get them to take the first 10 years risk or get them to do something that you bring the money longer, take the last 20 years risk or in the first 10s taken by the private sector, the first loss risk. There's a lot of ways to do it, but you're bringing multiple parties to do it, and then that's financeable. That's good. No, I understand that. So it sounds to me though, when I listen to you, that I kind of picture that there will be a lot of sort of one-off deals that might be very specific to a particular locality. And you know, that takes out the transaction cost would probably be really huge, a lot of discussions. So can we get to a point where this blended finance is sort of replicable, you know, like cookie cutter, everybody knows how to do it. You have the standard set of financial tools that it's like, okay, this is our approach. If you... It would be much more efficient to do that, to create a pool that sits above those projects, the type of project we're talking about, that would be able to do it and also blend the risk out from multiple projects is another way to do it. So you'd have a bunch of countries and what's the probability all those countries walking away is lower and then it could slap a guarantee or some sort of insurance or some sort of partial protection on top of it. So that would be more efficient. And so if you created, you know, if you took the commitment, if a pair has ever got funded, you took that as the equity in that and then you leverage it, you know, multiples of that. And the people would come with that and then you had the government instead of representing pairs, which is all the governments in the world except for one, you would then get the ability to have them all agree that they won't walk away. And that probably could then scale it. So the second concept is not do a project by project, but do a pool of money that could replenish and refresh in the money off the first 10 projects start to fund the next 10 and stuff. You know, I think those are all possible. I think they're complex because now you're talking about global multi-jurisdictional risk and, you know, that can take some execution, but it does lower the risk to blend across, you know, multiple... The probability of 10 countries in a row having the same problem is lower than one. Okay. All right. So you've been a really generous supporter of Stanford University, you supported the Global Climate and Energy Project and now you've started the Sustainable Finance Initiative. And of course, we're really excited about that. If you had one wish of what we could accomplish together, what would that be? The power of a university, this university and of this stature is a convening power to bring everybody together to bring the creativity, innovation and get the people to think of solutions and then use the analytical capabilities to test them. Not theoretical solutions, pragmatic solutions. And I think around finance, we're at the stage where we need those. We need people to agree, whether it's development banks, whether it's private industry, whether it's academia, whether it's the public sector, government, you know, type of people. We need them all in a room to really come up with structures and solutions. And then we need to publicize the role that various counterparts can play in them. Because what was it? We did it. When we announced the $10 billion a catalog fund with the UN four or five years ago, four years ago, I guess it was, and, you know, I spoke and said we're going to use $10 billion fund. And people called me and said I'll put the money in. And it was like, you know, just, they were just looking for vehicle capabilities. So I think the other thing that you hope with the, you know, the pulpit that this place has in the initial behalf that they can explain to people cogently what they can do and to participate. And I think that's the, that's the extra element. So not just to have a think tank where people are thinking of answers, but also then to say we've got some answers at work. We've got best practice. We've got understanding. We've got what has to happen. And then we can go to the insurance companies in the world and say, you know, here's what you need to, how to think about this. And we can go to the governments that are regulating those insurance companies, say if you did this, they could come. And, you know, if you went to the development banks and said, and I think that's the power of, it's a conveying power and an explanatory power and hopefully the solution providing, but solutions that have everybody in a room. Great. Well, thank you. Hopefully we'll be a think and do tank. So anyway, join me in thanking Brian Moynihan.