Businesses. Here we are. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. It is a pleasure to welcome you all on behalf of the brookings institution. Cornell law school and vanderbilt law school. We are incredibly delighted that you have joined us today in person as well as online. Talk with u. S. Financial system, given that it is outside of a Holiday Weekend and you guys are here to talk about the Payment System, i think it is safe to assume you are here for a completely full on nerd experience so that is exactly what we are here for. Deeply desperately needs it. It needs your ideas, it needs your policies and passion to get it ready and equipped but we know is already here so we know the u. S. Payment t system has undergone structural transformation over the last three or four years and if we could have a show of hands in the room, youve been using the last 24 hours to pay for anything. One, two, three, four. You think as much as so many of us are moving toward a cashless universe especially after the pandemic, communities across america, communities of color, lower income households left behind, under banking and the Payment System, it not working as inclusively as we need to. It is seemingly instantly. Money often takes several days to hit our bank account and be ready for us to actually use. As much as the u. S. Uncontested of the issuer globally, international u. S. System remains unwieldy and expensive and globally less and less competitiver as we enter this century. This is becoming a situation of a lot of money to move money and as we are entering this era in a digital century. The panels looking at the current Payment System followed by Digital Technology and stable coin potential solutions and we have remarkable keep notes from the ftb as well as, water of the bed and most of all we want to hear from you. This is an issue uniquely affected for each and everyone is us. Events ruppercaseletter, and future payments. We will introduce our fabulous panel which will be led by our leader, economic but the treasury market and its incredibly complex and hard topics believe she will do that for the panel so if you would like to join us on page. [applause] we have seen the Payment System over the past few years so the event is timely. We see nonbanks we have seen access to the payment rails and updates to the payment rails themselves. I have an excellent panel here today to talk about those things so the chiefe operating officer, julie hill at the university of Alabama School of law and cornell law. So lets jump right in. Dan, id like to start with you. The bundling of payments and how we see different sources performed by banks and now by other institutions. To whatt extent is the Current System working to what extent our current t policies holding . I guess i would devise the world institute, two segments here. Is it working, are people getting paid and make payments quickly, cheaply . On the other side, is it working from a policy perspective . Are we making sure the system is governed in ways that enable secure payments but also ongoing invasion overtime . I think we are not doing well on either and we can look at that domestically to the payments in the United States where a developed country is and a worldclass Financial System and especially poor people pay more in other countries. On the other side we also have the systems and emerging markets not invest in the payments so if you look to australia singapore and china, even the you and Good Government when it comes to financial market, they have invested in Building Infrastructure from a policy perspective to take advantage of all of the changes going on so i would say we are not doing great, are roadmaps were doing better. Onee what we can take from thos. Hand mark, you had an interestinger approach, a paymet service you provide so is it a good place or how could it be better . Look at the Payment System and is it working . Another thing about business payments, we basically say, is the system working well . This is where you do have divide, you look at middle to higher income population, it could be better. Not working badly. When you look at people working paycheck to paycheck, it is not working well in any way. We still have 67 of our population living paycheck to by the nation it is an indication that notot workin. To give an example, we look at bradley and include things like payroll, we have a lot of discussion from the policy perspective to understand communities and what we do. Two weeks for somebody to get there pay and consumers are lending money and having to borrow it from financial institutions. At a high level not working. Sort of on the back and, you are a world expert in the Federal Reserve system and we have gotten a lotot more information about who has the account. What does it say about the Payment System, what have we learned . One thing we know the book of the people using payment rails are banks that have deposits and bank loans and if you are making payments, chances are good that even if you use a non bank, its eventually going to get to a bank and get to the payment rails but the other thing have seen and make payments and want to make them with the Business Model that isnt just accepting deposits and we have not been very good about thinking about that space, what the payment might look like and whether they can use the Federal Reserve it its so far rather skeptical for some good reasons and some bad ereasons but fundamentally as a matter of law, not sure it is the feds decision to make. Congress was the one that creates laws around that so it is a bigger question than just the question of what the fed has done. Functional but not ideal. I did want to use your comments about congresses role here and who is in charge. There was a lot of talk as most of you will know, talking about charters, limited charters and institutionsns providing payment services. More recently there is talk from the Treasury Department about whether we should have separate federal payment so julie, is there a way to make federal policy on payments mo coherent, are either of those a good idea . Outside of the person who knows nothing and said Financial Regulation or payments regulation in a reasonable and efficient manner, with got all of these regulations. Back in thehe day i used to say its everybodys in charge and he is in charge. We have going on is so many regulators, they need to be in conversation and figure out who is in charge. And what they are not doing, really i think the possibility for the Regulatory Framework on congress and you all are as equipped as i am and how likely is to be able to develop this but it is a hard question and it is hard for regulators to agree on a piece of it. From a private perspective, what youou think would make thi . We are pro innovation and using this, we are a nonbank. Think about the response or competition it is amazing so we talk about. The competition coming from nonbank participants so we are pro innovation and we should create opportunities to participate as fully as possible. It will drive that down. We wouldnt be using it to ourselves in the financial services, we are pro inclusion here. Dan, to bring you in, i also do want to forget there is a whole mosaic of state regulation here, too. Dan, i know you have looked at this a bit, what you think about making it more coherent and where are we at the state level of regulation of Money Services . Mosaic is a good word but it can be beautiful in their complexity and fair toom say theres nothing about having 49 state regulators. There are 27 federal companies, 26 of them have federal regulation and then my work has done a lot shining light on how different some of that regulation is and how bad some of that is at the state level and it is a ticking time bomb. There is more and more that the inadequacy will cause problems. It already has caused problems, everybodys favorite in the news the last 12 months, the same regulatoryry framework in the payments. I am a fan predators only the beginning of the fundamental briefings. A charter is great but doesnt do much forut innovation and of itself, the safety and soundness but it is exposing work around access and around the government where the earlier part of your question, we dont need more regulator but we need more mandate. The occ and fed, they all relate payment institutions and none of those how the response ability for technological innovation or welfare letit alone individual personal honor and i would be most to the number of regulators and the discussion about adding to the list of things regulators come to take into account these other various important social policies. Tryingy out a couple of strings from that, you mentioned ftx which is sort of a poster child for the issue in the Payment System which is whether the funds are there i think when i think about facilitating payments, it raises a lot of questions about how people can be sure the money will go through. I think existing, i think that there are a lot of debates to the few things for a passionate for which regulators should be responsible for this. All of them have their bright spots in dark corners. But i do think creating a single federal Regulatory Framework for this isgl great with a single regulator. From there i also think if you want to do banking, get a banking license. The congress has added if you want to do banking without thinking what you should be able trto do with customer money shod be very limited. We have structures that enable us to put all of that money in one basket and watch it to misquote mark twain. We have thirdparty custodians. Have reserved accounts at central banks. We have accounts where becomes much easier to verify that the monetary liabilities and the total assets sitting in that account are the same. The backing that you have is relatively easy to monitor and verify over time. I am also interested in your take. So, i think i am less optimistic for the federal payments regulator for the regulation that we want in the payments space. I am much more i would say bullish on the possibilities that states could do a good job of having a team manager and that payments charter. I think that if you look out at what has happened so far, i think that states have kind of been on the forefront of how the payment charter may work. Certainly we have seen the litigation over the wyoming attempts to have a payment charter and connected to master accounts and now we are seeing other litigation. We have seen states taking the lead and adopting, watching Technology Laws and also a historical matter i think states have done a relatively good job enacting everybodys favorite, the uniform commercial code that is adopted state law which largely governs questions like what happens when payments go wrong. I am not as enthusiastic about saying we have to draw hope that the fed get this right and that spurs innovation because Everybody Knows what the law is. I have been somewhat skeptical that it is equipped to be a leader on this or beyond the fed i guess that i am still hopeful that there is some space for states and state regulation in the debate. I think i am probably a malittle bit more optimistic. I think the question goes to how do we make sure that money is there. The fed is quite wellpositioned for o that. We have responsive banking models. The regulator, it gives our members an efficient system. It gives them comfort that the funds will be there when they need to be there. I kind off want to ask a brod question from your perspective. Iwhen you think about the shortcomings of the Payment System, do you see it as a Technology Problem that needs to be solved with more innovation . I think that it is actually more of a policy problem. When you talk about the innovation system it is faster payment. Seeking out a few more hours, a few more days, a few more seconds instantly. That is important. The reality of those is the lack of a federal instant Payment System. What is happened is youve had private enterprise develop some of these systems. You have a number of solutions out there. They are not as good as had we had 20 years ago and instant Payment System. I have been encouraged by the degree of progress on that. If you think about the last five years and in terms of same days in realtime payments, you need to be able to keep up with that innovation in terms of faster payments. I think that that is been a real positive. From a policy perspective, i think that there is a long way to go still. I still come back to the points around the fact that, you know, in addition to technology, we need to have open data and we need to drive innovation and some of the inputs like payroll. If we really want to drive effectiveness in the Payment System. I think a lot of that falls on policy. Maybe we will hear from the director on some of that data question. I did want to ask you, i was given a perfect segue here. We have that now. We have the big bank infrastructure. How quickly do you think that this willwi take to actually really be felt . When do we get faster payments . I think that the jury is still out. I have been calling it fed in the future for so long. So nervous about calling it fed now. I think that that sort of illustrates the trouble with innovation coming from the government. Let me be clear. I totally understand why Community Banks wanted this now. I understand why if you are a Small Community bank it gives you heartburn to think that the fastest rail is the payment rail provided by the clearinghouse the largestss competitors that would just assume we dont exist i cant say that they have acted veinappropriately, but i can understand the Community Banks perspective. For it to be faster and more competitive. I think what we are still waiting to see is what exactly is the Community Banks doing now that it was operational. Do we think that they will embrace it. Do we think that wads of the payment payments that have been traditionally processed on the slower scales, i think a jury is still out based on whether this makes payment faster, whether it makes payment for consumers in particular faster or thirdparty innovations like time or nonbanks or what really drives faster payments for consumers. Dan, what do you think it will take to get this infrastructure to work . Should we do what aaron has m written many times . The fedeq changed policy to have banks make Funds Available immediately. There are many things that i love about aaron and many things that we agree on. I think that that will sale. If i try to imagine a system that was designed not to work, not a technological perspective, but a governance perspective, we are pretty close to it. The largest a banks will not use because they already built one. There is no competitive advantages over that system. Either in terms of the cost structure which is identical. In terms of the technology which is not inoperable. And in terms of what it inquires they do. I dont know if any of you have a bank that is signed up to the network. Of the 50 something banks that have signed up, most of them have signed up, actually, not most of them, simply to receive faster payment. We all like to get faster payment. That would be great if we got faster payment. If everyone just signed up to receive, nothing really happens. So the Community Banks that would most benefit from this, it involves huge payments necessary to do this. You have to build a webenabled interface that gives your customers the options to say i want to send the faster payment. We are not seeing a lot of uptick in that. Really i dont expect a lot of the inherent benefits of having an ati based Payment System really rollout until we move forward on open thinking and open finance. That iss the ticket of making this worth while. Dodd frank 10 30 three, the 13th anniversary is coming gone now. Fingers crossed for today, waiting for some of the leadership on that particular issue. That is the long way of saying we are nowhere where we should be on that. Where we need to be as understanding that having the Federal Reserve responsible for safety and soundness makes tons of sense. Delivering on Technological Infrastructure and promoting welfare pants will take more people. If this if you close your eyes and these types of issues were not in finance and banking, the current ftc would be all over this. Big incumbents controlling access to a set of reinfrastructure that results in consumer welfare process on a number of dimension. Anything other than finance, we probably would haveon moved on this a long time ago. I dont think that there is a single solution, but the first thing we need to do is admit that we have a problem. And then have honest discussions moving forward. I think that that is kind of what today is about. I did not know that i would be the glass is half full kind of person. You are from a private sector perspective. How are you thinking about realtime payment infrastructure are you wanting to use it . Where is it situated . I think that we probably shut down. The thing about it now to dans point is everybody has to create onramp to this. A User Experience one and incorporate us. I think the challenges most of us have already done that with limiting other technology. The most prevalent is probably the directors today. A lot of enterprises actually spent a lot of money integrating there are more banks that are able i to opt in and develop the infrastructure that is required. I think that you will find people adopting it. Therend is not a forced function of that system up front. It is not something we will be limiting in the short term. For us, faster payments is important. We should be talking a little bit more. More about foster pay. Pwe think that that is actualla much bigger problem in the system. When you think about, you know, access and things like that, Something Like the payment rail facilitating faster payment , is that meaningful and helping people who live paycheck to paycheck. It is. Just think about the payroll assistance today. A most companies are doing this every two weeks. There is a notification that comes by the feds. Once it is there, it still takes two plusay days. It could take three or four to get intoou someones account. It is ridiculous. We suggest talking about seconds and minutes on faster pay. We should go upstream. The largest source of inter consumer funds today. That system i is entirely broke. It is antiquated. Payments would certainly help produce that. That is a requirement. It is not efficient because what we need is more innovation on the payroll and realtime access particularlyly access, the funds that they have worked hard for that is now locked up inside of their employers bank account. I do want to pivot back to the senate counts question. This is very interesting. This is a big policy debate as to who outside the Banking System should be able to have access directly. So, i guess i will pose it to you. You are saying earlier that you did not think the fed should be the one to pose this question. How should we think about it . Well, the congress who gets access to that account and they did it way back before any of us were thinking about these sorts of payments, back when they created the Federal Reserve banks and said that the Federal Reserve banks could accept, deposit from originally just member banks and member states. They became broader to be all depository institutions and some trust companies and still the United States. Still, for better or worse, think that except deposits. I think now, how we ought to be thinking about it is we have a law on the books in the Federal Reserve ought to follow the law. I guess sometimes we are sort of understanding once the fed stretches its authority pretty thin, and massive financial crisis, we want them to save us, this is not one of those circumstances. This is a circumstance where the Financial System will not implode tomorrow if the fed does not stretch its authority to keep people from having access to that account. In my mind, if we want a different set of institutions to have access, maybe this, the account is what facilitates oupayments. If you dont have an account there is no real way to settle the payments. It seems to me that we ought to first and foremost follow the law. If we want to change we ought to ask congress to change it. Sdo you think that we should change the law . I am fine with it the way that it is. [laughter] jan, what about you . I do not think that it is fine the way that it is. I have gone far as drafting the way that it is. Expanding the universe firms that have access to the settlement rail. We really r should distinguish between clearing rails and settlement rails. These are the settlement rails. You cannot operationally send and receive money without it. But, the fact that we focus onio the settlement rails has been a question going back to your question. Who do we trust with our best first and last form of money . That is an institutional question about the types of firms we want to lead in. Our traditional answerr is banks and things that look a lot like banks. The question right now is are there other types of films that just do not present settlement risks where we could expand it to. I think that the answer is yes. Some of those firms are in the legal fight right now. I think the fact that they are having to fight the fed on this is one reason for congress to intervene. There are t others that like access and should have access who are then not the type of firms that we typically think of in the safety and soundness. This is why make the distinction between clear men and settlement thanks socket t technology. I know this. I have Done Technology for banks in my career. B the challenges of Legacy Technology stacks huge, often businesses and the fact that they are full of bankers and not Software Engineers means that when it comes to moving the clearing rails ahead using new technology to do things that the next generation ofia indian consumers thanks to upi like getting your paycheck right after you do the work will take for granted. Simply will not happen in the United States as long as we continue with the decision to let banks have the Clearing Technology for the Payment System. Their record is spotty at best. When it comes to developing transformative payment technology. Onezero basically. It is just not something that they do well. One of the reasons to bring thei in on the settlement side is because they believe it on the clearing side. Developing an ecosystem that allows us to do much cooler things. Things that are more helpful for consumers and simply faster payment. Just toi clarify, i am happy with more people getting access to the payment rails. I dont think that we need to change for those currently litigating over at the i think that the court should tell the fed that they are wrong. I dont really have any problem with banks that promote or nonbanks, whatever you want to call these institutions at one axis to the payment rails that present little risk getting access. I think sometimes the question is presented as should we take away axis from people that seem to be included under the current law and i am skeptical of that for institutions given a state charter. That iste right. They should have access. Even if they are involved in crypto. I do not think we are legally referring to the custodial affiliation. I do not think that i would still say statechartered. They are the rollsroyce of safe state charters. It is basically a payment sector within a network. It is all about a technological connection. If you look at state money transmitter licenses which lots of crypto firms have used, there are incredible sort of different ranges of assets that they can invest in. Importantly, many of them can completely escape. You look at these things and you are like, oh, that is how you evade that. One of the things im allowed to invest in, and im pretty sure, i can invest in the death of my affiliates. Which is another way of saying i can just loan all the customer funds that is not subject to the transition laws. All of a sudden i am a regulated empty shell that has an asset in the form of a loan that i have extended to my affiliate because it is not subject to any of these laws go out and do other stuff. If it is not subject to transition laws it is not subject to sending and receiving payments. That tells you the variance. That money is locked there. It is not going anywhere. There are lots of states that pretty much enable you, roll up the redbl carpet for you to evae their own laws. Let me just say that dan is right. I think the other litigation that you can kind of compare and contrast is the banko san juan international. Puerto rican offshore banks. Offshore Banking Sector providing loans, engaging in securities, transactions and they can do that as long as they do not do it for people ine puerto rico. They do have some risks already. It presents a much bigger risk. It is based on what state law andd local law allows these institutions to deal. Trust companies doing payments. I want to bring you in here. Who should be able to have payment accounts. You really want me to get in the middle . [laughter] that is a compliment. Again, i am pro innovation. We do need to provide more access to payment rails. I am not qualified to comment on specifically who. I do think that there institutions that dont pose a risk to the system and i think finding ways to develop a better framework around should have access we think is an important piece of innovation to the Payment System. Soon i will turn to audience questions. Keep your questions in mind. Payment discussion on interchange. We have the durban amendment. We have the cap fee on interchange. Debit card transactions. For master card. How do you think has it helped with the landscapes. Where are we on that. The whole changing environment to the United States which i think you have to combine with the other side of this which is credit card reward points and the like. The congressional Credit Card Companies for the United States. At the same time that eco system the huge source for the people in this room. For the people in this room for americans that do not have access to my platinum visa delta sky miles card. It is an awkward thing four of us sitting in rooms like this where we have to admit that we have a different Payment System because of things like this. Because we like points in the margin we dont really care about high fees. In other half of america and half is probably putting it too modestly. Neither getting the points nor that technological advantages come withh this Payment System. They are still paying the high fee. It is a bit of a mixed bag in that regard. It is a good news story for what technology there has b been. A bad news story especially as was mentioned earlier. It is a cash based system. They becomehe hugely important among social infrastructure. I know that it is a high level question. The size of interchange fees and car providers and merchants for the rest of the system. The change affecting your business and customers because you survey a lot of these customers that do not have the credit card rewards. This is something we are even more passionate about and i think. I agree with jan. We come from the consumer perspective. We are proconsumer. Pro Financial Access. If you look at the research, reducing interchange. You think about the proconsumer angle. There is lots of research out there for reduced interchange. It is passed on to consumers. Largely passed on to merchants. It was not good for consumers. Number two, it certainly has not facilitated access to the Payment System. The amendment is something that really did enable to provide to the Payment System. I will comment specifically on the credit card competition act. I think we need to be very careful. They are two different constituencies here. Reducing rewards for us to be very, very careful. We are not actually lining and reducing Financial Access to the system by reducing its change. A very important factor in this discussion. Julie. It would be great if payments were just free for everyone. As it turns out, to make the magic happen, the question is, too. A twoheaded market. You have people making for the payment. It is not clear we can all look at it and agreed. How the fees may be divided up. Payment and receiving payments. You think of the merchant receiving when you go by something. When you think of the person receiving the paycheck people and businesses are on both sides of that transaction. That fundamentally is what makes this pricing. We need everybody to use for it to be for all of this. This is, i think a question that there is no objectively clear answer to you. This is why you see debate about it over and over and over again. Regardless of what technology we are using. But, to the extent that you can make payments faster and cheaper for everyone using them, everyone is better off. I think from congress perspective there is not a right answer. [laughter] i do want to open it up to questions right now if we have any in the room. I see someone over here. Sorry. Yeah. If you could identify yourself and question rather than comments would be great. Okay. Can i identify myself . I am stacy ward and i am the ceo. Justit with respect i do not thk that it is a payments question as much as it is an exchange beyond committing fraud. They shouldcu not have customer accounts. Nobody in the United States has an account act in the new york stock exchange. I think that that is really the framework in which we should be talking about. The chairman has not been forthcoming about his conversations so we dont exactly know what was happening there. My question is to miss hill, assuming that we had the right regulation around transparency and collateral for stable claims , would you advocate having access to accounts . I am a big believer in Technology Agnostic ask assess access. The way that those businesses, you know, to me, the finding factor to be fair, they vary a lot in practice. In the way that they process payment. The ledger is a way of clearing and recording settlement. To me, that does not pose in and of itself risks that we worry about when we worry about master account access. Exposing the challenging around that. I am in favor of the credentialed matter having access to the Payment Systems. I think that we are still some distance from fully understanding the very different structures that these Network Structures for the views and how we need to upgrade updates are framework in order to accommodate them. It is an important but different question. I agree. As long as your stable coin is actually meant to be stable. Different people for lots of different things. If you are talking about they have assets that are held by legitimate estonian, i dont have any real concern about that if you have a coin that is not really tied to anything i think we ought not be calling that is stable coin. Fair enough. All right. Other questions in the room. The back there . Thank you. I am with the council. I have a question about access. My two favorite coffee joints in washington, d. C. Our compass and will bottle. They both dont accept cash. Over the summer, both of my banks debit card and credit card were hacked at the same time. So, for about a week or two, i got to experience what it was like to be un banked, essentially. I could not get, obviously, my favorite coffee. That was the worst least of my worries. 20 are un banked or under banked. Only banks can access fed now. My question to you is, what policies do you think ought to change especially in this . Actually, front and that could improve access to these new technologies. Mark, do you want to start with that . Sure. Firstly, i am sorry you were put in that predicament. Fortunate to have both of you contact at the same time. I think that, you know, i dont think that the issue here was fed now. They would have helped you access your funds foster in the situation. I think what you probably needed in this case is the bank and Credit Card Companies frankly. I am not saying that they dont happen, those things do happen. Working on any situation today. It is probably a bit more of a challenge c. We think, we dont think that all the time. We dont think that they are the primary restrictors. The people that are banked in a bank. They do not have people accessing the Banking System systems today. You go back 20 years. I dont know what that was. Maybe 15, 18 years ago. What that did is pushing wealthier customers at the expense of underpaid customers the Overdraft Fee burdens and the fee policies placed on lots of everyday americans. Moving out of the Banking System we have a situation where many have not come back based on the experiences. They are using a more flexible account. I think that, actually, what we need to do is drive more general access to the Banking System here. Create these flexible charges and Payment Systems that allow banks to continue to innovate. And to create better experiences that will bring a lot of these un banked in under banked people back into the Banking System to have had this experience. Do either of you want to chime in . The question for un banked folks is really why are they on banked . Why are they not in that space . They do surveys of this every so often. Of course, surveys are collect what people say and you wonder about whether youve got the right population ofio they are. One ofhe the reasons that they y is that it is too costly or they cannot afford it. And, so, to the extent that you can make you much get fewer un banked votes. Another thing, though, that they sometimes say is that they just do not trust banks. Then the question is, is there something banks can do to be more trustworthy. What these folks trust something other than a banker with a proceed nonbanks providing these types of services as Just Another Bank or could you move them to some folks have suggested the fed ought to be in the business of providing consumer accounts. Some are really enthusiastic about that. I guess some are not understanding of why people would trust the government more than banks but everybody has their own background on that. Serving on banked population, being very careful about why you think that they are un banked before you start fixing that problem. Just making it cheaper does not solve the problem of dealing with the bank. Other questions . I have a question. Correct me if i am wrong. I am by no means an expert, but what i have seen they talked about interchange fees and credit card rewards. A lot of time it comes up as poor or, you know, low middle income people are the ones that lose because they are paying for these rewards. People really gaining from the best cards and the highest interchange fees. Just from personal experience, i feel like for me, it seems to be more of a Financial Literacy issue sometimes. If you get a card it is not always based on your credit score or anything like that. If you get a card, it can help for Everyday Needs in terms of, especially when the pandemic. It was a big thing that helped out paying rent did you know, just everyday necessities. I amie using wards to subsidize things. Obviously, i am still playing with it. I just wondered your thoughts on is it really just, you know, helping the top Platinum Card owners or is it also, is it kind of a different problem . To clarify what i think the dominant story here is that credit card markets are twosided markets where youve got to get a Critical Mass of merchants on one side and a Critical Mass on the other side. For people that provide platforms you have to make a choice about how you will simultaneously attract all of those people. What happens is one side of the market receives a subsidy and one side of the market pays the price to get there. Because they want the other side of that market. Credit cards historically, the candy, if you will, you are earning ending to consumers who make it very undesirable for merchants not to accept patients that those Consumers Want to make. The added wrinkle is that we have a small number of Big Companies that are negotiating with those merchants. We actually haveha a tiered cret card holder. So, when i get my delta reward miles, thank you, delta, i am sure all of you know they will not be with us fairly soon, i am the type of customer that they want it although little do they know that i am cheap, but that is beside the point. Someone who has basic runofthemill visa mastercard are paying the same interchange. That is the part that makes for the subsidy that we are talking about. They are trying to attract the means of the world and to do that they are willing to pay points. On the other side of the market, i dont care about the fees. There are other consumers that have credit cards or are using the networks to then not get the points and from that side of the markets perspective, they are just there for the ride. On the other side of the market, they are paying the costs that are associated with not only the Technological Infrastructure that the Card Networks develop but also the fact that someone is paying for those points. This is not free. When you look at the system as a whole the answer becomes pretty clear he was actually paying for that. Despite the fact of their own individual perspective, people may feel like it is very helpful they are the ones that are paying the price in the room when you look at the system as a whole. It is exactly when we drink for happy hour, yes. We are about out of time. I want to do a quick lightning round. If you could snap your fingers and change one thing, what would it be . E . We will just go this way. My word had i think that it would be to send every american on a trip to their choice of either singapore or the United Kingdom and spend a day making payments and realize what is possible and realize how cheap it is to do. What we are talking about is not some futuristic scenario. That is the panel later. We are talking about actually building and offering consumers what actually exists already in the world. I will just want to show everybody what we can actually deal. I just want the Federal Reserve to follow the existing law. It is not just too much to ask. Very reasonable