Emmanuel Daniel on the Future of Finance and Digital Currencies

Episode Overview

Emmanuel Daniel is a distinguished Singapore-based entrepreneur, author, and global thought leader specializing in the future of finance and its societal impacts. He founded TAB Global in 1996, a research, publication, and consulting firm that manages platforms like The Asian Banker and Wealth and Society, serving the financial services industry across Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Recognized as a top 10 global influencer in the “Fintech Power50” list for 2021 and 2022, Emmanuel’s insights have significantly shaped contemporary financial discourse.

Emmanuel Daniel Born in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Emmanuel pursued higher education at the National University of Singapore, earning a degree in law. He furthered his studies at the University of London and attended an economics and business course at Columbia University in New York. His academic background laid a solid foundation for his ventures into financial journalism and entrepreneurship. In 1999, he received the Citibank Excellence in Business Journalism Award for Asia, acknowledging his work on the internet’s impact on banking.

Wikipedia As an author, Emmanuel penned “The Great Transition: The Personalization of Finance is Here,” published in September 2022. The book explores the evolution of the financial industry towards personalized services, examining the roles of cryptocurrencies, blockchain, and emerging technologies in this transformation. His thought leadership extends to public speaking engagements and advisory roles, where he shares his expertise on geopolitics, financial innovation, and the future

Episode Transcript

Kevin Rosenquist: Hey, welcome to Pay Pod, where we bring you conversations with the trailblazers shaping the future of payments and fintech. My name is Kevin Rosenquist. Thanks for listening. Emmanuel Daniel is a prominent figure in the global financial services industry, particularly known for his insights into fintech and banking. He’s the founder of Tabb Global, a company best known for its flagship publication, The Asian Banker. He’s an author, a futurist, and has a lot to say about decentralization. He talks a lot about how the Bank for International Settlements may be losing its way when it comes to central bank digital currencies. Cbd cs are finding it difficult to keep up with the innovations taking place in crypto and DeFi. Why is that? Well, let’s find out. Please welcome Emmanuel Daniel As a futurist, how do you balance objectivity with emotion?

Emmanuel Daniel: That’s a very good question. And the answer to that is, as a futurist, it’s very important for me to know where we are heading. To have a sense of direction. When will we get there and how will we get there? That’s the work in progress. That’s the motion that we talk about. And, you know, and it’s a long journey. So it’s not so much that this is what we’re going to look like in two years or three years or five years. But based on the decisions that you’re making as a fintech person today,  you know, which direction should be, should you be facing, , and, and what forces should you not be resisting because, you know, with or without you, that’s where we’re heading. , so that’s really the job of a, of a futurist, , which is to have a sense of direction that is applicable to where people are and the decisions that they need to make today.

Kevin Rosenquist: So you have a reputation for being able to anticipate trends in fintech and digital banking. How much of that ability is based on data and how much of it comes down to like, a gut feeling?

Emmanuel Daniel: So there are some tools,  you know, in, being a futurist, , about, , scenario planning.  you know, about complex theories , stuff like that, that you have at the back of your mind. , and the data that I look at, , is meant to confirm or deny the trends that I think, you know, are, well, on their way. So, like, for example, today we are doing a lot of work on digital banking. , and when digital banking started as a phenomenon, , the original jurisdictions like the UK, , did not allow the banks. They had something called the witness rule, which did not allow the new disruptive banks to have The asset side of their business. It was very much a deposit gathering platform. But as the regulators allowed banks, the digital banks to have both sides of the balance sheet. That’s when we started to see profitability. So then you look at the digital banks that are coming on stream and seeing which ones are profitable and which are not. , originally the banks that were profitable were either those at a lending business or in the case of, , very specific jurisdiction, Korea, for example, the first very profitable digital bank at a forex business, , which the traditional banks didn’t have. And that was very unique to Korea.

Emmanuel Daniel: So to answer your question, , you look at the data to validate, , the direction that you think the industry is going. , the data sometimes tells you nothing, , about the, the inflection point, , and at which point, , they will happen , for that actually look for trends, patterns,  , of everything from how humanity has moved, how specific countries and jurisdictions have made decisions in the past, , and what they’re capable of making, , today, , going forward. So you look for patterns and then and then you, you know, extrapolate those patterns into the future.  So one of the things I say in my book, , is that, , the US only ever has inflection points in finance in times of crisis, , and, , and everything that the US, , says that it won’t do, , at the point of crisis. It actually makes those decisions, you know, and makes a huge, , sometimes turn around in, , in banking and finance, , in capital markets, in the economy, , that it might even have had, , rejected, , you know, systematically in the past. , so I have that at the back of my mind when I think about at which point , policies are made in the US and inflection points take place.

Kevin Rosenquist: Okay. Yeah. So you mentioned your book, , the great transition, the personalization of finance is here. It came out about two years ago. , you talk about how finance is becoming more customer centric. , the role of AI and blockchain and other technologies and reshaping the financial landscape. Of course, decentralization. First of all, I’m curious. Two years in, has the landscape changed largely how you thought it would in two years?

Emmanuel Daniel: Two years in, I have more questions or very specific issues. So I don’t talk about customer relationships, , supply side, meaning that I’m not I don’t look at the industry from a banker’s perspective. So what the banker wants to imagine is that, , with new technology, , the service levels that they give makes the customer feel, as if it’s a customer of what it makes you know. That’s what banks think of when they when we use the word the personalization of finances here. What I mean by the personalization of finance is the other way around. It’s that finance is well within the control of the individual, and that he has control in the relationship with the financial institution. Looking back at the institution. So what I’m saying to the banks is you need to look at the industry from the customer looking out, because the customer today has a lot more power in his hands and tools in his hands to define the relationship and to know what it what role it should play for his everyday needs. The questions that I have now much sharper because there are some issues that I have covered in my book that look like they are taking a longer time. , you know, banks are bearing fruit or even, you know, coming together.

Emmanuel Daniel: So take the business of intermediation. , theoretically,  finance today, , the whole intermediation function has been disintegrated.  you and I can transact with each other directly. We do not need an intermediator. Theoretically, , however, for all the technology that has been invented, , the people funding them, you know, venture capitalists, for example, , the platforms on which they sit, , and the banks that still have a licensed role in the process are still intermediaries. So the the big question I have in my head is how will, , the intermediation , function eventually disintegrate or reformulate into a different model altogether? , and that’s work in progress. , and a lot of elements go into defining that. One of it is licensing, of course, which is that as long as regulator decides what’s permissible or not.  you know, that overrides whatever the technology enables. , the second is, of course, how society moves, , how some of these innovations are funded and, , you know, and how are they protected, , you know, by different players in the marketplace. You know, when we think about, , web three, , and web 3.0, they’re actually two very different models of intermediation. , web three, , because it’s blockchain based, , has a stronger personalization front.

Emmanuel Daniel: In other words, , UI, everyone around us are fully capable of building our own platform and deciding who we want to interact with. So just think about black, , blockchain in the back of your mind.  web 3.0 is Tim Berners-Lee, which is, , the good old fashioned http , and he thinks that, , you know, that can continue to be, , the, you know, the, model by which new businesses will continue to evolve.  you know, when ChatGPT came into when OpenAI introduced ChatGPT, , the whole idea was to, , locate it on a personalized platform. , in fact, it’s still the, the, the vision of, , of, , AI, which is, , that is well within the control of the individual that that it will that the new tools that are coming on stream, , will be, , personalized, , and will be, , user centric rather than platform centric. However, when OpenAI, , you know, was building their business, they chose to, , you know, work with Microsoft, which is actually a web 3.0 model. So we are actually see this huge , dichotomy and this huge battle between two different models,  working its way through and how it will play out eventually will be ready.

Kevin Rosenquist: Yeah. It’s interesting because with decentralization. So it sounds to me like like you thought we’d be a little further along with the decentralized part in two years, but is if I feel like a lot of times when I talk to people about decentralization, it really comes down to trust and trust. The public’s trust. And even with stablecoins and things like that, which are obviously backed by fiat currency, it’s still kind of like it’s not as secure as having your money in a bank or in a credit union. You get better yields, but you get, you know, there’s still some risk there. I mean, if there’s more risk, it’s going to be hard for people to truly adopt it, right.

Emmanuel Daniel: And a lot of that had to do with the way it funded. When you take any coin. It’s still funded by venture capital money. And they still have when you when something is funded by venture capital and it’s a flat platform model, the whole idea is to onboard millions of customers and then eventually monetize that relationship, those Relationships. And that’s, you know, being the model of the platform economy from its inception in the 1990s, that hasn’t changed at all. You know, no matter what we’re doing today, now, if the funding model changes, if funding new stablecoin can be done from within the stablecoin itself and then carried and, you know, and create the momentum around that, , then it will start looking very different. , but we’re simply not there yet. Mhm.

Kevin Rosenquist: Yeah. I was talking to a friend recently about the mindset of Gen Z, you know, the younger generations and, and, and it seems like and I’m generalizing a bit but it seems like they’re, they’re, they resist the status quo more. Maybe not in a loud way, but they’re and like they’re not trying to take down the machine but in a quieter sort of way. Yeah. I don’t think it needs to be that way. So I’m going to try something different. How impactful is that toward a shift away from traditional banking, these younger generations being just more like, hey, I don’t need to do it this way. If there’s this.

Emmanuel Daniel: So they are exploring many different frontiers, and not any one of them has amounted to enough of a critical mass, , to, you know, define a new trend going forward. Okay.  one of the things I look at for Gen on, on, on the Gen Z front, , is the kind of, , gaming platforms that they’re working on, and, and they are attracted to, , and what’s interesting in gaming is that, , it has the promise of a highly networked environment. There is no centralization , that you’d be able to, you know, buy and sell and transmit, , tokens or, , value, , digital assets and so many things that you’re able to do on it. , but the economics of it doesn’t allow for it, , the economics of it is such that and then it goes back again to, , the platform model that the, the founders of the gaming platform, whether it’s single user or multiple users. They all want to dominate. They all want to be centralized. , none of them want to, you know, give any function for operability and so on. , so, the Gen Z young person, you know, entering the gaming world, you know, would wish to be able to navigate through the gaming world on their own. They, are ready for it. They have the culture for it. , but the economics of the industry doesn’t allow for that. So I think that we will need to wait to see again. An inflection point will be any one trend, , that has enough of a critical mass that it breaks through, , into a new economic model. , and then we will see that the technology will take off.

Kevin Rosenquist: We talked a little bit before, before the show, before we started about something that you were interested in. And that is the current state of central bank digital currencies and their development, particularly in relation to the role of the Bank for International Settlements. So can you talk a little bit about what the BIS is and what their role is in the larger ecosystem?

Emmanuel Daniel: Yeah. So the BIS or the Bank for International Settlements is the central banker of central bankers. , but they actually are more of a talking shop, , that brings together all the central bankers from around the world and even from economies that are, you know, standing up with each other, like the US and China. , and I know the central bankers in the US, the Federal Reserve banking system, the FDIC, , and I also know the, , some of the individuals in the Chinese, , PBoC and, , banking regulators. , and and it’s interesting to see that the BIS is where they all meet once a year and they, you know, discuss, , you know, how they would want to build a global financial infrastructure and so on. And one of the things that the BIS has been working on, , has been on central bank digital currencies. So as a fashionable idea, , it’s something that is, , embraced by, you know, just about every central banker around the world China, India, you know, , the US, , and any number of countries, large and small,  , as a concept essentially started as, , the central bankers response to cryptocurrency, which is, , here you have a currency that, , doesn’t, , is not answerable to any central bank around the world. , doesn’t have a, you know, an intermediation function. , it’s embedded in the currency itself. And therefore it was a threat, , to, , fiat currency, , that, , that is held by the respective central banks.

Emmanuel Daniel: And so they thought that if we digitize our fiat currency and we issued it directly from the central bank into the economy, , then we would, you know, be able to ace what’s coming on screen with, , with, with , cryptocurrencies. , but the game plan as it, as it were, how it is, how it’s evolved is that crypto has kept ahead of central bank digital currencies. , and everything that you see central bankers doing today has been to keep up with the technological evolution of crypto, to make sure that central bank digital currencies don’t lose out. , but over a period of time, , there has been a number of, , , anomalies that made it look like retail CBDCs. , may well not work. , the US, for one, has rejected the idea of, , retail CBDCs. There is, , legislation going through Congress right now , to ban the idea because, , there is a public perception that CBDCs, , interfere into personal information and gives the state too much power over the economy and so on. And so we probably will not see a retail CBDC in the US. , in a country like China, which has had a retail CBDC pilot since 2017, I think 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. 6 or 7 years. And it’s still a pilot, , you know, and then you ask, why is it still a pilot? , and that’s because, , having issued the central bank digital currency, , there is no confidence that if they make that mainstream, , that it would not disintermediate or disrupt the banking infrastructure as they know it, because technically you can actually issue a central bank digital currency directly to the economy.

Emmanuel Daniel: So then you ask, what is the role of the banks and how would they compete, , to be relevant in that, in that, , architecture. So they’ve now created a, , architecture, which is like a solution looking for a problem. , you know, what is the problem? , you know that they are setting out to, to, , resolve, , and so the Bank for International Settlement has been quietly or rather, you know, very, , you know, gently moving into a realm where it is discouraging the idea of a retail CBDC and encouraging the idea that banks themselves should tokenize their deposit business. And that seemed to be a better model, , that will keep the banking infrastructure architecture as it is right now. , and build on the, the, the existing model. , and what that means is, , technically it would mean that banks would become issuers of their own stablecoins.  you know, and that’s how I describe it, to keep it simple, , although the central banks would say, no, this is not a stable coin. This is the actual deposit that the retail depositor has with the bank in account. Now the US might actually be able to do that as an idea.

Emmanuel Daniel: In fact, there are banks in the US at JPMorgan which just started its own tokens and so on. , and then China might well need to backtrack on its, , retail CBDC, , without losing face. , and, and, and try and incorporate a model like that. And the BIS has the function of having to coordinate all of these different initiatives and different approaches , and try and see how they can come up with a universal model that will be accepted by all central banks around the world. , there used to be a time when the BIS was a very powerful platform that could implement a global banking infrastructure or global banking standards, , for , different numbers of things, , such as the Basel regime, for example. Basel what? Basel two. Basel three.  the central banks from around the world get to Basel for meetings and then agree on what, , the Basel , arrangements should be. How much capital should the bank set aside for deposits? For lending?  you know, how much leverage should they have and how much liquidity should they should carry all of that and agreed to, , up to now. But going forward, , what I see happening is that it’s going to be increasingly difficult for different jurisdictions who are members of the Bank of International Settlements to agree on, , you know, so and the, the most important of which is the central bank, there is greater agreement that all central banks should issue a tokenized version of their wholesale deposits, , because it is important for central banks to become digital in the first place, but not necessarily retail CBDC.

Emmanuel Daniel: So there’s a lot of discussions taking place at the BIS. And, you know, in the different regions.  India, for example, has got a very successful state run, , infrastructure, , identity infrastructure, , on which any number of retail, , digital players can issue a retail payment platform, which is a little bit different from the Chinese model, which was an accident in history where two platform players, Alipay and WeChat, , were able to dominate, , the country, , by creating their own digital platforms before the state could, , put in place an infrastructure. So in the case of China,  the platform players went head first in 2010 before the state became competent enough to try and regulate and provide a level playing field. Whereas in India, which started slower, the state built the digital identity infrastructure and then the and then allowed the players to go out and, you know, and created a level playing field on which you have many different players.  Now how the US will build its own model remains to be seen. , but being a libertarian sort of an economy, , I think that the idea of every bank issuing its own token is very attractive to the US. And it will come, come about at some stage, at some point.

Kevin Rosenquist: How close are we, would you say to that?

Emmanuel Daniel: It can happen.

Emmanuel Daniel: Tomorrow if, , if the willing regulators allowed because the technology fully exists today. Yeah.  what hasn’t happened yet is the reason for allowing banks to issue or to tokenize their deposit base. , and as I say in my book, , the, the that those inflection points happen at a time of crisis and, and the crisis that is brewing in the US right now is to retain the dollar as the global reserve currency, because there is a concerted effort by many different jurisdictions around the world to try and move away from that, because they have seen what the US can do, because the dollar is, , the predominant,  reserve currency and trading currency. , and the US has been, , you know, they, they call it, , weaponizing it by using, , the clearing mechanism to decide who gets to play and, , what happens to players they don’t like. So when Russia attacked Ukraine, Russia was immediately ostracized from the dollar clearing platform. And that frightened a number of different countries, , you know, China, Iran and so on. And, , and, and now on a bilateral even Saudi Arabia.

Emmanuel Daniel: And on a bilateral basis, they are looking for alternative models. None of these models are again of sufficient critical mass to be a threat to the dollar being a global clearing currency, but if it even perceives that it is going to lose that mandate and that status, the US is very capable of going in there and changing the rules immediately. And one of the rules that the US needs to change is to digitize and tokenize the dollar. , the US did exactly this in 1971 when, you know, for all those years after World War two and you ask any economist, , you know, John Maynard Keynes or any one of them Mises, , they all believe in the gold standard, , you know, but in 1971, you know, the Nixon administration decided that it couldn’t retain this idea of a valuation against the gold standard, and it just floated the dollar. And today, globally, we we all operate on, on a floating regime. So, so long as the US is able to call the shots , it is very capable of changing the rules.

Kevin Rosenquist: I’m curious about the retail CBDCs that you mentioned. You know, those are the ones that tended for everyday use by the general public is how interested in the general public is how interested in CBDCs would be by the general public.

Kevin Rosenquist: If they weren’t retail CBDCs? You know what I mean? Like, it seems like the general public would be interested in something like that, but outside of that, they might be like, hey, what’s the point?

Emmanuel Daniel: So something that both central banks and even fintechs underestimate is the amount of effort required to effect change in behavior or, you know, introduce the popularity of a new payment mechanism, right? Yeah. WeChat, when WeChat and Alipay were introduced in 2010. By that time, you know, these two platforms were well funded by US investors Goldman Sachs, , Masayoshi Son, , you know, the Vision Fund and all of that. So they had the firepower to invest in marketing , to get the critical mass of user base going. That was so critical. Now, I personally visited a number of jurisdictions where, , CBDCs have been introduced legally as part of the local economy. And the central bank governors tell me privately that you know what? It’s not working. , we can’t get the banks to, you know, play with us , to use CBDCs,  as part of their own, you know, platforms and economy. And the reason is no bank is willing to go out there and invest in clearing systems. , at point of sale technology, which takes place at the merchant store and try and divert payments to CBDCs when they’re making a lot of money just by clearing credit cards. You know, as long as you’re able to swipe the credit card and the bank makes 2 or 3% of that transaction, they’re not going to make that transition. So central banks have to either mandate that by law, which will then, you know, destroy capital in the banking system, or they have to themselves, you know, initiate payments. And the funny thing about CBDCs is, and I’ve seen this in, in poor countries, , where when the, , the central bank issue CBDCs with the intention of creating financial inclusion in parts of the economy that are extremely poor, like fishermen in in countries with large archipelagos, they the effect is actually to alienate the poor part of the population, , because the part of the population that is, , you know, generating wealth and, and, , becoming, , you know, rich, , is the part of the population that is plugged into the global economy.

Emmanuel Daniel: , whether it’s tourism or trade, , where the payment mechanism is either credit cards or funds transfer to the banking system. So you actually end up bifurcating the banking system and even alienating the poor even more, who then can’t come into the mainstream economy. So I’ve seen that. And , and therefore, you know, I, I don’t see the future of, , central bank digital currencies, except that, , in the area of certain types of payments, like subsidies, like pensions, where the state owes to the individual, , you know, having a digital token that the state can send out to the individual directly makes sense. , but the individual should be able to translate that into, , fiat currency that is in the banking system by, by convention, you know, and I think that that, you know, there’s a small application that makes sense. , and so CBDCs will be one of several different payment platforms in a, in a good working economy.

Kevin Rosenquist: Yeah. Yeah.

Kevin Rosenquist: You have to, it has to be convenient, right? For people, it has to be easy to use that money, to use it to buy things or to pay people or move things. And if it’s if it’s complex and hard to manage, then people aren’t they’re not going to be on board, you know.

Kevin Rosenquist: Yeah.

Emmanuel Daniel: And building the infrastructure for acceptance for, you know, for clearing, , who’s going to pay for that? You know, , and central banks tend to underestimate what it costs to create new payment platforms. And so do fintechs, by the way. So there are a number of fintechs who have got alternative payment systems. They think that, you know, as long as the proposition that they are offering is, , makes sense, that that the customer take up will be unnatural.  in fact, they do need to have a very long gestation period where they are themselves investing in, , and burning money, , in order to get that user base.

Kevin Rosenquist: Mhm.

Kevin Rosenquist: Yeah. What one of the things you talk about is how far behind CBDCs are from cryptocurrency and decentralized finance and all that will be if they decide to move. It’s not.

Kevin Rosenquist: So much.

Emmanuel Daniel: It’s not so much how far behind they will always be behind.

Kevin Rosenquist: They will always be behind because.

Kevin Rosenquist: Yeah.

Emmanuel Daniel: Because, , the thing about crypto is that as long as it’s open source, , it invites, , and you mentioned Gen Z, right?

Kevin Rosenquist: , Gen Z is exactly.

Emmanuel Daniel: The generation that’s attracted to the idea of going onto a platform and creating their own APIs. You know, and that’s something that, , you know, existing, , it’s, cryptos, but doesn’t exist in central bank digital currencies, although some central banks have an intention to, you know, add that functionality in there, you know but and but then in turn in turn it creates problems of control and so on. So,  you know, it’s more a case of,  , you know, how do you make that transition?

Kevin Rosenquist: Right.

Kevin Rosenquist: So you have, , you have any other books on the horizon?

Kevin Rosenquist: Very much.

Emmanuel Daniel: Actually, my next book, , it’s, , about transitions in society as a whole. You know, when I, when I completed.

Kevin Rosenquist: My.

Emmanuel Daniel: This book on, on, , you know, the future of finance, I realized that, , if finance is going to be personalized, then entire societies are going to be personalized. And therefore , we will need to be thinking about how societies are governed as a result, you know, and there are different governance models. There are many things that we learned from the time.

Kevin Rosenquist: The.

Emmanuel Daniel: World moved from about the 1700s to the 1900s.  and the governance models that moved faster than others. You know, what’s interesting about that period of transition is when we moved from the industrial, where we moved through the Industrial revolution, which, you know, theoretically started in the UK. The first beneficiaries of the Industrial revolution were societies that were more organized liberal economies. So you had Prussia, you know, you had various other parts, the part of the Russian and the Ottoman Empire and so on, which were able to move faster because they had stronger centralized control. And actually, that’s what we’re seeing today. The countries with stronger centralized control are able to absorb and proliferate new technologies much faster than the liberal economies in which these technologies are created. You know, so , my next book really is.

Kevin Rosenquist: To reviews talk.

Emmanuel Daniel: About how civilization moves, and how we take a bet on the economies that are likely to be successful going forward.

Kevin Rosenquist: Wow, that sounds awesome. That’s a very fascinating topic.

Kevin Rosenquist: And, you know.

Emmanuel Daniel: We pay a lot of attention to US China relations right now.  as I travel around the world, I suddenly come to terms with what I call the middle. The middle powers. You know, the countries which are our bases in their respective geographies, , which can take advantage of the fallout from the US-China crisis. , and these countries have existed for a long time. They were middle powers for a long time. They’re just looking for a new, you know, proposition on which they can build momentum for their own economy relative to the economies around that. I do see an opportunity for a multi-polar world. And actually, that’s what happened, , in the course of the Industrial Revolution, the world did become multipolar. But before it became a bipolar world again. And in a multipolar world, it’s really, you know, all of the taking, which is,  regardless of how strong you are, , you go out there and, and, and you claim, , economic territory for yourself.  so, , you know, there’s an extension to the future of finance, which is that as the new, , global financial architecture takes shape, it will result in winners and losers, , at the economic level, , at the, , you know, at the, at the, at the state level, , and in and in the societies that, you know, are able to take advantage of some of these, , opportunities.

Kevin Rosenquist: Mhm.

Kevin Rosenquist: Well, that’s, , that sounds like an interesting, interesting book. , any any idea when, when it might come out as it done or are you still working on it.

Kevin Rosenquist: I’m working on different.

Emmanuel Daniel: Sections of the book.

Kevin Rosenquist: Um.

Emmanuel Daniel: And the challenge I have is how much of the book is a extrapolation of history and how much of the book is, , a laundry list of, , you know, possible scenarios going forward?

Kevin Rosenquist: Okay.

Emmanuel Daniel:  it’s, , you know, so there’s a it’s a work in progress. I hope to have it out by the end of next year.

Kevin Rosenquist: Oh, okay. That’s not too bad. All right. Well. All right. Well, Emmanuel. Daniel, I really appreciate you being here.  your book is available everywhere, I assume, on Amazon. The great transition. Yeah, yeah, the great transition. The personalization of finance is here. Emmanuel, thanks so much for being here. I appreciate your time.

Kevin Rosenquist: Thank you very much, Kevin, for the time.