Refinitiv Newscasts - WEF panel discusses opportunities and challenges 1

Strides Pharma Science

24/05/2022 15:10

Click the following link to watch video: https://share.newscasts.refinitiv.com/link?entryId=1_qxxs5zqb&referenceId=1_qxxs5zqb&pageId=RefinitivNewscasts
Source: Reuters

Description: A panel at the World Economic Forum discusses what are the
opportunities and challenges ahead as digitalisation and green technology
continue to accelerate.
Short Link: https://refini.tv/3sO5YbB

Video Transcript:

>> Our view on the next 12,18 months, I think we'd say it's much of the same.
Anticipate inflation to stay high, rising rates, geopolitical risks to stay
high. But I do agree, I think for us as we think about it, it's about building
a resilient portfolio. It's about building a portfolio that you believe can
manage through the economic cycle. And at the heart of that resilient
portfolio is diversification. It's building a diversified portfolio across
asset classes, both public and private, and across geographies. We look at
geography is right now and there doesn't seem to be a safe harbor. See lot of
risks in a lot of geography. India is probably one of the few bright spots
globally where we see some really interesting opportunities. And right now
internally, we probably see more value in the public markets than the private
markets. In that the public markets have taken some of the pain. There might
be more to come, but there's probably more value in the public. >> Nikhil, you
have a particularly interesting a vantage point for this question because for
those of you who don't know, Nikhil with his brother created what is now the
largest trading platform by volume in India. And you have turned the pandemic
into an opportunity. You started before the pandemic clearly, but the boom,
the Robinhood like craze in India really was on your platform. So where do you
see the value? >> To be fair, the Robinhood craze is over in Robinhood. The
stock has collected 80 %. I'm more pessimistic than them. I think you don't
have to be invested all the time in the market. For a large fund, maybe you
need to maintain some exposure. But as an individual investor, you can choose
when to be in the market and when not to. So speaking not just for India but
geographies across the world, I think with the geopolitical issue with
inflation at hand, with a generic slowed down across the world in most
pockets, it might not be the worst idea to not put on risk right now and stay
away for a bit. I don't think there's anything wrong in giving markets that
time to play out. >> I think for the institutional investor though, cash is
tough right now with inflation running where it is. >> Anybody who want to
jump in on that? I want to talk about Tech. And I didn't want to go to you
first, Keyfru, because obviously there's a lot of attention on Tech. Those of
you who followed today's snap is down 30%. And a lot of attention on the China
Tech decoupling. Western Tech companies are leaving China. There was a
question over how much Chinese companies will be able to stay listed in the
US. What is the ecosystem? What would you say to Tech investors wanting to
invest in China, but also in the US. And yes, you can preface it by saying
that not all Tech has created equal and there's Tech and Deep Tech, go for it.
>> Okay, sure. There have been a lot of regulations on Internet Tech companies
in China, but that's really similar to what US and EU have done. As these
companies become powerful, they have a lot of data. There is a need to protect
the consumer rights and privacy, as well as the need to have an ecosystem
where other startups can basically grow up. So I wouldn't really look at that
as a negative, I think is actually a maturation that the Chinese ecosystem.
But having said that a regulated environment would put a ceiling on how fast
these companies can grow. It's good for the environment, but these companies
may not be as attractive as their stocks have reflected. But I think we're
actually at the confluence where multiple technologies are blossoming, each of
which is as powerful as Internet and electricity. So we're looking at
artificial intelligence, robotics and automation. We're looking at synthetic
biology, drug discovery, robotic surgery, advanced medical devices,
semiconductors, quantum, new energy, new materials. All of these areas we're
at the cusp of really changing the future of humanity. This is not just one
technology for one company or one industry. These will become intertwined to
do things that couldn't be done before. So we're very focused in big on these,
what we call Deep Tech because we're very few times in the history of human
race, do we have so many different technologies that are coming together and
maturing in the company being combined together. As an example where we're
combining robotics that can generate high volume data for the use of
protein-to-protein interaction. And that's supervised by roboticists and
biologists, bioinformatics and AI people who are building algorithms, they're
building drugs connected the pharmaceuticals for large molecule drugs that can
treat previously untreatable devices. So here is a combination of maturation
of technologies and I think that will dramatically lower the cost of drugs in
the future, speed up the delivery. So we're very excited and we feel this is
really the fourth Industrial Revolution. And it's not just five, six
technologies independently growing, but they're coming together to change the
world. So that's where we've decided to really bet 100% of our time in
investment. Is the only area that we will be investing in the future. >> What
about Chinese companies in the US? A lot of talk about delisting, but clearly
a lot of appetite for listing. And so what's your view and then yours, Lynn?
>> We're in early-stage investments. So I'm going to talk more about what will
the Chinese Tech company think about when they list. I think US has always
been a great option. It has the largest liquidity, most expertise. But I think
in light of the US China potential challenges, very rapidly, China has built
up alternatives. Hong Kong, I think, is a very good alternative. It doesn't
have as high a volume, but a lot of Tech companies got reasonable attention
and are beginning to list. The pipeline is very long. There are actually
several domestic markets. But just speaking about my passion, Deep Tech, there
are actually two Chinese stock markets created explicitly for the Tech. One is
the STAR Exchange and the other is the Beijing Stock Exchange. And that the
reason for creating these two stock markets is that I think the Chinese
government is aware that other stock markets have had profitability
requirements which US markets have not had. And yet if China wanted to attract
Deep Tech companies to remain domestically listed, that must be waived. But it
doesn't want to waive it for all companies because China is very consumer
oriented investment basis. So the solution found was, let's create two stock
exchanges. They have to be Deep Tech, meaning that they have to have proof of
their novelty, patents, good technologists and all that. And once they prove
that you no longer have to be profitable. So I think the great news for the
Chinese entrepreneurs now we've got at least four options for tech IPO's. The
US options. Well, two in the US, in Hong Kong, and the STAR, and the Beijing.
So five options. >> Lynn, of course, you would like to see a vibrant, thriving
market for Chinese companies. I mean, what can be done? What are you doing
about ensuring that? >> Yeah. The end of the day, the US is the home to the
most well-governed, deepest liquidity, most global investor base out there. So
we want to continue to have that position in the market. And we don't take
that for granted. I am hopeful that the regulators can find a path forward to
continue to allow Chinese companies to list in the US. I mean, there's the
Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act and there's been some timeframe. So
since that have been proposed and I'm hopeful that cooler heads to prevail and
that we don't lose sight of the ultimate goal which is continue to allow the
most global companies to get access to the broadest investor base. From an
investor's standpoint though, US investors do not like uncertainty. I think
that has been proven time and time again with multiple bouts of
volatility/financial crisis is whatever the case may be. The US investor
rewards transparency and particularly certainty of regulatory framework. So I
think the EU investors that invest on the US markets are also yearning for
that from the Chinese companies as well. >> Did you want to follow up? >> I
would love to see the two governments find the resolution, so this path will
remain open. I think it's been a very positive thing for Chinese tech
companies to have had the two stock exchanges in New York. And it seems like
it's in the interests of both countries and their respective companies,
investment banks, and the like in the US and then the Chinese VCs and
entrepreneurs. >> I wanted to switch to ESG. A sustainable investing has
reached a record. Just over the past year, more than 35 trillion in the five
top markets. But at the same time, there are questions about what ESG really
means. And also questions of whether we should be tracking instead of ESG
risks on asset values. And then that means that we're not tracking the impact
that dead companies are having instead of more writ large on society. >> Even
Elon Musk called ESG a scam. So John, you've spoken about the balance and for
example, continuing to invest in the energy sector even while shifting your
portfolio to ESG. So what does that mean to you? What does that look like to
you? >> We spent a lot of time on this. I took over this role both about 15
months ago, I think most of my time is spent on COVID climate in China. And
we've spent a lot of time and I think we have historically really turned
ourselves in knots on ESG. We have a soul fiduciary mandate and that's to
maximize return, so we really sat there and try to figure out how can we
invest in the transition and still fulfill our mandate and actually through
the past year, the thinking internally and I think the thinking broadly has
really evolved from looking at climate is a risk to look into as an
opportunity. And it actually is probably going to be a generational
opportunity and I've heard numbers today ranging from two and a half to to
four and a half to $9 trillion a year will be needed to transition the global
economy and this is not just about transitioning from fossil fuels to
renewables. It's about transition the entire global economy, even in hard to
abate sectors. So I think that was a really important transition for us
mentally to go from thinking that as a risk to an opportunity. And that got us
very comfortable with making a net-zero commitment earlier this year. And part
of that net-zero commitment is, and we've talked about this to invest in the
entire economy transition. It's not going to be linear, it's going to not just
about renewables. It's about cement, it's about steel, is about agriculture,
is about aviation, it's about hard to abate sectors. And we haven't made
near-term commitments right now, other than we want to double our portfolio in
transition assets from 65 billion to 120 billion over the next few years. And
to take a very active, engaged approached, we will not divest, will not go
down a path of blanket divestment will continue to support energy companies
and their transition with a view that natural gas is transition fuel and we'll
invest in these hard-coded sectors. I think the way where we sit right now and
where we're spending a lot of time and working with other institutional
investors and other market participants is around measurement and really try
to understand the measurement. And we recently released our results and we saw
a reasonable improvement in the carbon intensive our portfolio and the
question I asked our team, is this real? Is this noise or is this real?
Somebody was real because we had sold an asset and some of it was just that in
our portfolio, we only have measurement given to us and about 30% of the
positions, the rest of the proxy we estimate. Every quarter it gets better. We
get more data, we get more information, it gets more accurate, but right now,
I think this is a really fertile ground and what you measure you can manage
and really getting consensus and getting convergence on some measurements
would be very valuable, I think to the transition. >> I mean, as you have
built this platform, how much has this been, the sustainable investing been a
consideration in India, for all this huge new basin of investors. >> We'll say
India is not a very penetrated market. Out of the 1.4 billion people, we have
about 2% have either direct or indirect exposure to equity markets. EFG is
coming onto the floor today, maybe over the last five or 10 years, but like
Graham was saying, I think measurement is the problem. One really has to
figure out which companies, how ESG compliant and I don't think there is a
simple way or skill to garner that information today and that probably has to
change. >> I'm sorry. Are you guys ready for eliciting? >> No, we're not. >>
That could be interested. We have a [inaudible 00:14:25], it great, it's the
best one. >> Actually, I did want to ask, in China, where is China on the
scale? You almost have two different sides of the spectrum here that I've just
been illustrated. >> Sure, I think the ESG needs to be a universal commitment
and I think China is very much committed to doing that. A lot of our companies
are, when we invest we do extensive ESG work and we also make sure that we
have in ESG officer, whose approval is needed for the investment to move
forward. And we actually have a lot of investors who want us, who want ESG
reports. So I think the system is working, the LPs are asking us to be
compliant, to show them transparency, and to report each potential issues and
we have turned down investments based on ESG. So I'm maybe a little less
familiar with the Chinese stock market, but we have a number of companies has
gone public in Hong Kong and I think Hong Kong follows a lot of the rating of
companies. So I think investors are beginning to feel that they should only
invest in companies that do a reasonable job in ESG. And the companies that on
which I serve as a board all have ESG committees, take it seriously, produce a
100 page reports and mark all the issues. So I think it's basically an issue
that we universally care about. >> What percentage would you say have you
turned down? >> We've turned down just one case out of maybe for the approved
last year. >> I think one thing too is important as I talked a lot about
climate and that's been a real area of focus. I think going forward over the
next few years. Something that we're starting to think about more and more and
is getting a lot more tension is the S and ESG and that's even behind the E
part in measurement. >> I agree with that. It's a bit harder for a company to
disclose that one. I mean, when you think about ESG, it's this big amorphous
topic everyone talks about like it's its own thing when you actually break it
down, it's environmental, social, and governance. I think public companies
have all figured out the G part in that they're going to disclose how many
board members average board tenure, what diverse population looks like of
their board? Things of that nature. So the governance is chairman, CEO, the
same person, that one feels like it's figured out, environmental feels like
it's getting figured out some of the proposals from the SEC around Climate
Disclosure. I know are at the forefront of our issuers minds and I know that
our large-cap companies are increasingly disclosing scope 1, 2, 3 emissions.
S, I think is a tougher one to figure out as to how you actually disclose that
metric appropriately. >> There's been so much innovation in broadly energy
market investing recently and even we're seeing it here at Davos this year. So
much of the concern is around food supply and food security. Have we seen what
innovation have we seen? I know you said you're not a big investor in that
sector, but it clearly is a very big concern. How much are we going to see
innovation in these markets? What are you seeing? >> I think you will
ultimately see innovation in these markets by looking at our pipeline of IPO
companies. Companies are going to come to market when the market settles down.
They are focused on innovating and the agricultural side of the business. In
particular, those companies that have actually come out in the last two months
though, are all focused on green energy type and they've been rewarded in the
market for the fact that they're focused on green energy transitions, at least
the ones that have come out on the NYSE. We just had three different IPOs that
we're focused on. The transition to green energy, NuScale Power accelerate
energy and Eve Mobility all focused on environmentally sustainable practices
around energy and you're seeing that be rewarded. One area at the exchange
side of the business, it's our job to provide tools to our issuers into the
community to really add transparency to your point as to what those
disclosures actually look like. What are the actual underlying number? So you
can make a much more informed decision about what you put in your portfolio.
We've just recently launched something called the NYC Sustainability Council,
which takes Chief Sustainability Officer, some are some of our largest listed
companies and helps them navigate the new disclosure frameworks and or gives
feedback as to what best practices are in navigating that the list accompany
market. >> But specifically our agricultural, there's a lot in that. >>
There's a lot of innovation in that area and I think the silver lining on all
of this, like you mentioned, the silver lining on COVID being very focused on
that. The silver lining on issues like food scarcity coming to market, there
will be a ton of innovation. There's a lot of entrepreneurial minds that will
focus on sustainable practices, greenhouse type growing environments, ways to
actually feed the next generation of people. So there will be innovation that
comes out of this, even more than what we know about today. >> How about in
all of this? Is there a concern now that currencies are being used as a weapon
of war and how does that play out in your world? Any one would take that and
the mighty dollar? >> I can I haven't thought about too much on how it plays
out as a weapon of war. >> So as a global institutional investor that has
exposure to many different currencies, I will say at the heart of a lot of
portfolio construction for institutional investors is that the US dollar is
the currency that will appreciate during crisis that there'll be a flight to
safety to the US dollar. And I think we've seen that actually over the past
few months. And I think the question is, is that going to continue? And I
don't have an answer for that, but that is a very foundational belief within
the institutional investor community of the correlation of the US dollar to
volatility in the market and whether that's going to continue. >> Did you want
to add something you care about them? >> Yeah, sure. I think the amount of
money the Federal Reserve has printed, especially in the last two years. I
think the absolute number is obnoxious and the debt levels that they're
getting to. It's bewildering in a way that the US dollar is strengthening,
especially over the last month or two under the circumstances. But I don't
think you can take any of this as a certainty. I think there was a time in our
history when the pound had the same dominance that the dollar has today. You
go back 100 years, there was something else. So I would not say the chance of
a serious threat to the dollar in the coming decades is 0%. I wouldn't be
surprised if somebody can test it. >> I want to turn to back to you. You're an
expert in AI and you've written books, you have a new book in fact out and
basically what our AI future looks like. Should, and if so, how governments
regulate AI more? >> Yeah. So we have been fortunate that we started investing
in AI over 10 years ago. And we are able to build a very strong portfolio. And
now we're expecting approximately 10 IPOs are pure AI companies, of course,
connected to industries such as autonomous vehicle, chips, and Manufacturing
AI, medical AI, etc. So I think we're just about to see the blossoming of AI
IPOs. That would be a great thing and I hope that will generate some degree of
confidence that when you have truly differentiated technologies, that there is
a premium that could exist. Of course, private valuations are not low, so that
remains to be determined. So we're continuing to invest in AI and the types of
AI companies have gone from very early stage, just fine, super-smart AI
people, and then figure out what to do next. That's in the very earlier stage.
Then it's connecting AI to every industry possible sequence by who's got more
data. Because really that is the key thing. So financial companies, Internet
companies came first, then there were robotic companies and computer vision
companies, natural language companies. Then there are autonomous vehicle
companies and fancier robots. So I think we're moving along that path and
still many industries are not covered, so opportunities are still abound. But
something I'm really excited about is the confluence of AI in science. Using
AI to advance the state of doing research in biology, making it 10 times
faster to use AI robotics for a wet lab so that people and technicians are not
needed. Not for the purpose of saving the money, but for the purpose of
accelerating things like drug discovery, reducing the cost, making it faster.
So the list goes now using AI for battery simulation, using AI for new
material discovery and the list goes on. So I think we have not begun to see
or reap all the awards from AI. Now, we don t think AI itself is necessarily a
platform. It has to be combined with an industry or a use case to create
value. And I think there's still big opportunities out there, but it's not AI
along that those days are over. So regarding the regulations question, I think
there are a number of concerns that arise with AI that vary all the way from
data security, AI could be used by large Internet companies to manipulate
people, form bubbles, have us become addicted to the streams of content that
comes along and also bias and explainability. So I'm fully aware a lot of
these issues. There's obviously a place for regulation. We do need regulation.
And in fact, I think if you look at some of Chinese government's regulation on
the Internet AI companies, they've actually done a pretty thorough job. What
things would be effective back actually. But I think that's not, I don't mean
to suggest regulation is the only solution, I think any new technology that
introduces lots of problems, there can be technology solution, can be as a
basically civil society solution, private sector solution, and there will be
regulations. So I think a lot of the problems I mentioned earlier, there are
technological solutions. It's like when electricity was first introduced, you
hear the electric killing people, but we did regulate it. And we invented the
circuit breakers. And similarly when Internet connected to Internet or the
viruses came along, we didn't make that illegal. People figured out antivirus
software. So there is a potential answer to each of these. For example,
privacy might be addressed by, so there's a new sector of computing called
privacy computing. Underneath are a bunch of new algorithms that hopefully
will allow us to have our cake and eat it too. That is, AI can use your data,
but they don't get to look at it and keep it and no human will get it. So I
hope this technological path is developed. And then there are actually
opportunities for third party watchdog that can be watching for, say, social
media companies. Why not rank them based on their number or percentage of fake
news? And if we track that, that will cause consumers to leave a social media
company if they keep doing worse in that domain. And that might be added to
ESG as a way to make investors stay away from companies that aren't
responsible. So I think there are lots of things that can be done. Regulation
I think is absolutely needed. But I hope it's done in combination with these
other things. And it's thought of as a last resort. >> And also, I think China
has actually gone further than other countries and this regulation. But what
about AI proof jobs? So labor regulation with AI, you spoken a little bit
about. This as a sector you speak a little bit about. >> Right. >> The the
jobs market. >> Yeah. This is, I think, something that might also be
favorability for China because in comparison of protecting job security versus
advancing technology, I think China's answer is more likely to be, don't stop
the technology moving forward. If it does make an impact on jobs, there should
be new ways of whether it's a social welfare or some other approach, or
perhaps an accelerated training and placement that will place the people.
Whereas I think other countries where labor unions are very strong, and
technologies slowed down, those countries that do less well because they'll
adopt technology slower. >> If you were an investor, say in the Americas or in
Europe or in Africa and you're saying I want to go into Asia. What is the
difference between investing in tech, let's say in India visa-vis China. >> I
think we had a lot less saturated than China are. I think they're ahead of the
curve. And penetration beat and many technology platforms is probably a little
ahead in China. So I think the opportunity is tremendous in India because even
you when you look at how many people have a bank account? How many people
might need a FinTech company? That number is bound to go up significantly in
the next decade. And demographically very young country and education is
probably the biggest concern for the government today. And they're really
putting all the gunpowder they have behind it. So I think India in the next 10
years in those sectors would probably do well. >> And governance? >> Yeah, I
think for the first time in a long time in India, we've had stability. We've
had one government, one prime minister for almost a decade now. And that
stability is being appreciated by investors across the world. I'm here in
Davos now. Anybody I meet here, they might be critical of many geographies in
the world, but everybody is really optimistic about India like Rambo, just
mentioning. I think a part of the credit for that does go to the stability in
governance that we have had. And truly do you know, I think totally utilize
the India opportunity. I think we will need a stable government for a long
period of time. And that seems to have happened over the last decade. >> Okay,
we have 11 more minutes for questions from the audience. >> Nobody? [inaudible
00:30:35] The one person I know in the audience is asking a question. I wonder
if that's a coincidence. >> I'd be interested to know. My name's Jeremy
Garrett-Cox. I'm from the UK. I'd be interested to know your perspectives from
investing angle as we approach some of the target dates on in relation to
environmental element of ESG. How will your investing behavior be impacted by
that and will that be part of a drive towards ensuring that the changes needed
to happen actually happen? >> In other words, can they be more active players
as opposed to just sitting, leave it to government? >> Yeah. And do they see
the pathway to actually becoming increasingly active and participating in this
as the need arises? Because all these deadlines are in [inaudible 00:31:27].
>> Yeah. >> So today we had the governor's meeting where Secretary John Kerry
and several other experts came and Mark Carney came and spoke about ESG. And
they've really enlightened us on the progress that they've made and the papers
that they will be releasing to us, which will give a clear blueprint for what
are the expectations, how to do a better job. And I think each of us have
committed to taking that very seriously. >> Yeah. I'll say a couple of words
there and I assume we're talking about 2050. But what are we doing in the near
term and what do we do in the near term to get carbon out of these companies
in the near term? And again, I think there's actually been a little bit of
evolution over the past couple of years just in thinking that we have a
framework that we use. We call it abatement capacity framework of looking at a
company and saying, how much can we abate today? Basically, just the
low-hanging fruit and then in an escalating price of carbon, how much can we
take out of the company? And then what is the residual carbon that is probably
going to require some type of innovation or invention to remove. And we were
just looking at one company recently and we could pretty much get to removing
84-85% with available technology today and so the message is, do it. So take
it out now. Before I think there's little bit of a binary attitude of we can't
get it all. So we won't get any. I think what we're trying to do is we
recognize we can't get it all out in some of the companies because the
technology is not there. But let's get out what we can now and be thoughtful
about what's the low-hanging fruit and then with an escalating price of
carbon, let's just take out what's economical as quickly as we can. >> But
what's the quid pro quo? In other words, let's take it out. It's not always as
you say. What is the, I don't want to use the word weapon, but what is the
threat that you can bring to it? >> Well, I wouldn't say a threat. >> That's
why it's a heavy word. That's why I was seeking another word, but what is the
moral suasion? >> We already engaged constructive partner. >> Of course. >>
And I think we view that as companies transition will be worth more that they
ultimately the company will be more valuable. That green dollar is worth more
than a gray dollar. And the influence we have will vary depending on the
ownership stake. If we are a controlling shareholder, we have an ability
through the governance of the board, to have more direct influence. In our
public portfolio, we use our proxy votes and we have said we won't have a path
of blanket divestment, but we do buy and sell and we expect the companies that
we invest in to have a viable transition path. If we don't think they do, then
it's possible we will sell or we will vote against the board of directors. >>
[inaudible 00:34:29]. >> Me I think you're seeing investors voting with their
dollars already. That's why you've got the ESG tilted funds, the ESG tilted
indices that have come out, gained a lot of popularity. And you see one in $3
going into those types of funds now that it's been proven that there are alpha
generating. So I think you're already seeing investors voting with their
investment dollars on the companies that have been quicker to address the
issues. >> Second row, a hand up went first. >> Thank you. I'm Deborah McCoy
with Bain & Company. I'm interested in regional policies that are being set
that might impact global public markets. Specifically the EU taxonomy, which
includes in it definitional terms. So companies will have to share some
information and investors will be asked to classify funds based on that
information, perhaps Berlin, but maybe others. What do you think about a
framework like this and how it would impact public markets in the US over
time? >> I think there needs to be one common global framework. Otherwise,
everyone is disclosing different pieces of information on the cost. So
actually, just tell everyone what you're doing it starts to significantly
increase. So we're supportive of harmonization of standards. It makes for the
ability to compare apples to apples also, as opposed to different frameworks
causing different anomalies in the data. >> Or arbitrage. >> Or arbitrage,
yeah. Or the threat of a company disclosing something that may have the
appearance of greenwashing, which was not their actual intent. >> Did you have
a follow-up? No, I thought you were about to sit. Go ahead and we have a
little bit time. That's okay. >> I suppose that perhaps deeper question is
that the European Union Commission would like to define what is sustainable
and what is not sustainable as a matter of policy. Ends up being reasonably
different than any of the voluntary classification systems or even ESG data
providers making their own methodologies available. So once we get into the
realm of regional policy hitting capital markets, I wonder if there are other
unintended consequences of that and we see taxonomy is coming not just from
Europe but from other parts of the world. How are you thinking about that as
an exchange? >> I think that's pretty much true for any form of regulation.
There's the regulatory arbitrage. Type consideration that you do need to
consider is one regional policy and the requirements on a company in a certain
region more restrictive and then ultimately that causes a company to
incorporate somewhere else and go public on that jurisdiction. You never
really want to be in that scenario. You don't want companies to make that
decision for that reason. So I'm hopeful that there will be a global framework
that does get established like it's been established for some of the financial
disclosures that have gone through or an information sharing type arrangement
across regulatory jurisdictions. >> Gentleman in front. >> Yes, if for
political reasons the US government decided that all Chinese companies should
be delisted and no Chinese companies should be listed on the American public
markets, what would the bottom-line impact be on Chinese companies access to
capital or capitalization or American investors, or an American investment
banks, or who's the net loser in this? Where does the money ultimately find
its way to the investors? Just not through New York. >> Lee came through
because you started on this path. We touched upon this before. >> But I think
everybody is the loser. >> That's what I was going to say. >> The investment
banks in the US, the investors who have more options, especially in light of
the potential Chinese companies in tech that can do extremely well. The
Chinese tech companies. Why the choice? Because New York Stock Exchange is
different from Hong Kong, from China. If we can optimally match, then we'll
get a maximum return for the entrepreneurs and the VCs. So I sure hope we
don't really get to that lose-lose scenario. >> Let's say the global economy
is the big loser. >> Yeah. >> That's pretty much everyone's part of the
ecosystem. >> Please. And since we have two minutes, would you ask your
question then would you ask your question and then we can divide them up so it
will go faster. >> Well, thank you. Hi, my name is Safe. I'm a Global Shaper
from [inaudible 00:39:35] talking about investments and deep tech,
particularly AI. My question to Mr. Lee and the panel is, we talked about
medical applications, thinking specifically about climate though, we're
hearing a lot of rhetoric from VCs that the next unicorns are going to come
from climate space. So wondering if you can elucidate about specifically when
it comes to deep tech and climate, what focus you're bringing to that area. >>
And the gentlemen here quickly. So if you'll ask your quiz so then we can
address them both at once. >> Hello everyone. [inaudible 00:40:06] from
Argentina. Again to Mr. Lee, we talked a little bit about AI. We know we live
in an age of AI, CGI deep fakes. So how can companies actually prevent getting
attacked by this attacks? Eventually, how can [inaudible 00:40:25] like this,
if any of us gets the vaccine, like, Oh, my company is going bankrupt, you
know what, investors will do. So you can always flag a video on a centralized
platform, but what do we do once it gets mirror and it goes to a decentralized
channel? Thank you. >> It's really hard questions. >> And you have 40 seconds.
>> In terms of climate, we're most excited about advances in technologies like
solar batteries, going beyond lithium to sodium hydrogen. I think we have a
lot of room to go to make a new energy even more economical. And that will be
a strong driver for people to invest and use it. On deep fakes, read my book,
AI 2021. I have a story. You did read it? >> Yeah. >> So it's extremely
difficult. I think in addition to having websites that do extra check, have
the catching algorithms for them, I think we also need to accept as world
citizens that just like when we see someone post something ridiculous, we
question, is that real? Can I verify it? When we see videos that look real in
the future, we have to learn to do that too. >> Great. Well, on that note and
we do that all the time at Reuters, we always verify. So there you go on that
note, I will close this panel. Thank you to our panelists really. Great
discussion and thank you to all our audience