federal government does well. if we have trouble having highest return projects that are sent in the public sector doesn't do well. if we have a shortage of jobs, we know they could do something about it in the build an infrastructure takes -- if there's one thing that comes through as you said, make sure that the solution you have is the problem at hand. what i am going to dismiss this panel and invite my colleague to move fast to private investment investment -- human capital investment, both private and public and encourage you to stay for that and if you stay for that, you get a free lunch. [applause]

idea of mine we are trying to undertake investments at the city grows that will raise future living standards. everybody thinks investment means roads and bridges and we think it can be much broader. we want to think about human capital. this next session is the way traditionally not it is investment. we will have education people think of coors without bridges and education in human capital. this one is about maybe some of the things that we think that's just been been made to help people out. maybe if they go to low income families, they might actually have quite powerful if fax on the future. as of that is what we will explore here. this is thinking about transfers to low income families and what impacts might they have been what is the research say about the impact that they have on future living standards on growth and productivity.

, then review the evidence for arrest. critical, and respond and then we'll have a discussion. thank you so much. >> thank you. hi, kristin butcher and i'm talking about assessing the long run benefit of transfers to low income families. we are used to thinking about government investments in infrastructure, maybe even in research is something where they are upfront costs. there is a picture of my neck of the woods in boston. looks costly. but then maybe have a month term benefit in terms of increased to the capacity and helping workers to get their jobs and goods to get to market. there's a lot more productive capacity, but we are really not used to giving the transfers to low income families in that way. mostly we think we are here to

tell you children are cute and their suffering is acutely painful to watch. we think of the transfers is something that ensures current consumption. make sure it doesn't get to know and make sure that suffering. could this be thought of as investments in human capital? do transfers low income families change the project in capacities that the children in those families attain when they become adults? and in this way are they viewed like those other investments is something that has been up front costs for the long-term benefit and perhaps a benefit greater than those costs. so these are certain domains of investment that we might think about and think about what is the scope for these to be actual investment. so cast provides more resources it may be that test effort and money spent financial strain and

all the related stresses they are. things like food and nutrition programs, the biggest one would need to snap program, supplemental patrician assistance program. perhaps that ensures critical points in development and provides our resources were generally. we also might think about health insurance. that it potentially ensures access to health care and those things can never prevent or treat illness as they arrived and of course it provides for research is. finally, housing is the other domain i will talk about. that might ensure a safer environment. know that income and no-space to assemble no-space to us in the law that could lead to long-term health consequences and it might allow families to live in a better neighborhood and of course it provides our resources. so there is a growing body of reese urged that shows that there is a link between these early environment and later outcomes. and so people tend to break this

down into different. come in here to rip. which is characterized by the hypothesis that i talk about a little bit more. the neonatal period particularly critical for the development of some different types of capacities are just a place where there might be sensitivities and therefore the developments might be malleable at those points. and early childhood and later childhood and researchers tried the same two different types of capacities that seemed to be developing each of these points. the fundamental neurological architecture we all carry around with us seems to be developed quite early which are installed to the fetus quite early in development team to show what a fairly profoundly later in life. cognitive skills have been shown to be malleable pretty early in childhood and noncognitive things seem to have some malleability even a bit later to

adolescent development. i just pulled out a quote that illustrates the plasticity of human development. i must've been cold when i was doing this because it all about what land and basically this is the father of the fetal origins hypothesis that exactly illustrates that we are all born with approximately the same number of sweat gland admin that are to three h. if you are in a warm climate to develop the capacity to use them. in a cold climate you don't and never after if you go somewhere hotter you'll be better off because you can pull yourself down if you're raised in the hotter environment. people think that there are many other capacities of human development that might be malleable in this way. they're starting to be a very large body of literature that ties certain stimuli at different points in development to these later in life capacities. so there is they are viewed

extremely loud and the hypothesis and it goes through different types of new-line common nutritional insults that might have been. infectious disease and maternal stress. i do not tend to go into the details, but i love the details. all of these are sort of mounted on a rigorous form of trying to figure out when there is a group that is a treatment group in a control group. you're not just saying is that died for your mom to be in an earthquake when she is pregnant with you, like we all think he had. i donate to the documents. trying to find a group that is really similar that it's just not undergone this seems to me like. this body of research is large, growing and very compelling that there is something that happens. there is evidence used later in life again using this rigorous plot arms that there's a connection between what happens

early in life and later. it is of course possible that poverty can affect patrician, disease and stress in ways that could be deleterious in utero and then later time periods in childhood. but the big question of course is can transfers actually alter these environment in a way that can affect these long-term capacities. and then the follow-on question of that is of course are those benefits that are going to accrue down the blind greater than the cost of the upfront investment? so why might transfers not help these long-term prospects? they must just not be large enough to meaningfully affect the childhood environment. impaired night and do the transfers him why. so they might reduce their labor supply if you give somebody a dollar, they might work a dollar less.

and of course it depends entirely with a use that time. if a is that talking and reading to their children, that might be of benefit. if you look at things the short term it will look like he didn't do very much because the total resources available to the householder remaining relatively unfixed. i'm talking theoretically at the moment. there's a large empirical literature that tries to look at all of these blanks. lots and lots and lots of research. economists are excessive to russians. our entire transfers the same as cash. that depends entirely on what the family would've done if they had cash. if you give a child a vaccine, if the family is going to give a child a vaccine anyway you handed them the cost of vaccine. if they would have done that, you fundamentally change the name. and then there's also literature on what are the labor supply effects of the transfers.

there's a quote in the economics. it's usually unattributed msn. have you summarize economics? people respond to incentives. the rest is commentary. but then there's also the question of how much today was on. if you're interested, i will refer you to these volumes that i think in the interest of time lost a bit. here's just one example of why we might think that there are some big labor supply effects and other effects. so this is a picture across the horizontal axis. this family and come as a percent of the poverty line and on the vertical axis is share of children covered by health insurance and the different colors correspond to different areas of the pink eye the bottom is 1987 and at the top in chile believe that is we've got 2012. what we see is that with the

expansion and medicaid and the state children's health insurance program, we are doing away with that enormous debt that have been spread around the poverty line in 1987. it doesn't take somebody who is like an end-to-end mastermind to think that maybe families approaching that cut off point and were worried about being able to cover the children with health insurance might have had some labor is supply effects in states over time find that low income women are more likely to work when their children are not going to leave the union shirt if they do that. so the other poverty trap is not only are they sort of concurrent offsetting effects, there may be the of low income families to parents build more capacities on the job and if you're not working your cap that way and potentially even worse, maybe

there is an intergenerational transmission of welfare dependence deep. we are starting to see some really interesting result coming out of the scandinavian countries. social scientists are applying india's case because those countries have this incredibly rich data that are linked across generations and across massive administrative data set they really allow us to get into this. there is some evidence that when the family of origin tabak us to disability insurance in this case at a later generation is more likely to participate and is based on random assignment of judges adjudicating those cases. now what are the challenges to a sender's and in the long-term effects of the safety net that we have? there're two sources of those challenges. one is data and one is a correlation is not causation which is in my commons license

that i have too mentioned that whenever i can. on the data front, if we want to see the long-term impact across a range of these domains, we have to wait until people her age 25 to look at completed education. something completed fertility age 45. he transcended in the 45 to 50 range. you have to wait a long time to see whether these things manifest as having benefits across a red range of domains. so if you just look at this big kind of program, only two of, only two of those up there are older than im. and so, hopefully we will have to look for a while to see the impact on mortality. and then counted the other issue is even if we had a wonderful data set that connected what was happening to you when you recount, but you're later in life outcomes are, we need to worry, why did you get that?

it's not enough to say that a transfer when you are job and now better or worse because we don't know why people got that transfer and we really need to have some way of saying is this worse than doing better than they otherwise would have. that's why we need to macroeconomists toolkit, which really can this have randomized controlled trials. differences and differences where we leverage the fact that a lot of times these policies get rolled out over different geographies over time and we can say hey, the people in this state can stand in for what would've happened to these people have been not gotten to this program. in the two minutes and four seconds i have left, all talk about these very recent research papers that are going back to the dawn of our current social safety net and say and what do know about the impact these have

had on the children at the times long-term capacities. interesting than the last year there have been papers that have come out across these four different domains. all of these are based on a really rigorous research design whether its possible treatment and control groups so you can plausibly say that this is the effect of the program. so it reaches back to the mother's pension program and it is 11 to 1935 good they look at people who've applied for this program. these are people who declare themselves to be in need get the eligibility was physically had to be low income and a widower having been abandoned there has been in children. and then they looked many years later at the people who received it and the people who were initially screened at the knowledgeable, but for some reason on the way discovered to have our resources and were not eligible and they made in paris

and then you can see across a large number of domains they find the people who receive this compared to close matches who did not are doing better in a lot of domains. there's a lovely paper by her and hillary coyne collects at the initial rollout of food stamps and snap yet that was an county by county and they can look at people who are in counties and at a higher faction is here to five years covered by foodstamp program available and compare that to people who have less time covered and they find that people who outsmart the critical. in this era to five years had improved health in terms of metabolic syndrome and improved economic view. there are two new papers on health insurance. one of them leveraging those expansions of his autograph about in the 1980s and 90s,

can turn across people in state they did and didn't expand and they links back to irs records and they found that medicaid eligibility for children increased income and payroll taxes paid from a decreased the receipts to reduce brutality by age 28, which is exactly what i think most people are dying. still it's noteworthy and raise the likelihood of go into any college by age 22 for women. they are able to do a cost-benefit analysis that suggests the government will recoup about 56% of every dollar spent by the time these people reach 60. i'll skip over this one, but this is another one that looks at the very beginning of the medicaid program in the 1960s so we can see people little bit older and a dramatic impact and evidence that there's an actual path to the government every 2%

to 7% return on investment. finally, haas and, there's one more terms that it is a follow up to them with an opportunity study. good to opportunists and they randomized people into a control group that had business as usual, a group that had section eight vouchers and were allowed to take us to find their own housing and a group is told he could have a section eight voucher but you have to move to a low poverty neighborhood and have counseling order to do that. following these folks now, which some of them are in young adulthood. the research has found that people under 13 other randomly assigned have quite striking beneficial outcomes. from this dawn of the social safety net programs is just turning to come out using rigorous methods to try to distinguish between correlation and caused nation and a billion meshes quite nicely with this

other literature that is growing about why the early childhood. my did in fact be so sensitive and so important to invest in. we are not always able to save the tape is as if i'd cost-benefit is that the benefits are greater than the cost is sometimes the best we can do is ask if the person got this are they doing better and so we are a long way from understanding the response in being able to rank all of these in terms of what is exactly the most about it. but those things that indeed are able to do a cost benefit analysis seemed to show pretty striking returns. this is always the critique. that was then, this was now. what we did the same benefits if we increase investment. i'll just leave you that in my neighborhood in the, massachusetts there's no evidence that parents did for their own children on the flat of the curve of investing in china did. thank you.

[applause] >> aj showed up on the screen. there we go. and greg, university of california irvine. and it's in this era to wrestle stage foundation in new york today. it's a pleasure to be here. i don't have big comments about the paper. just some suggestions. so let me get started. the paper makes this point and kristin did, too when we think about transfers, we are obsessed with labor supply. this is not about labor supply. labor supply is a second-order

concern in this paper. it is about to what extent the transfers have impacts your singing and decades ahead on the children growing up in the families receiving the transfers. kristin highlighted the growing evidence for neurobiology about the importance of early life experiences in utero as well as the first few years of life. paper signs and the empirical studies, long-lasting and ask for the growing number of these different programs and a paraphrase, studies of the long-term effects of crash transfers and stances so for show remarkably can to send evidence of improved log turned off entertainment. so my comments are as following. i want to say it looks like there is some in here. it looks like the timing of when the transfer is first received it matters a lot with earlier been better.

if timing matters, there are some tricky policy implications i want to talk about those. finally, i am not quite as old as chris and is about the robustness of the literature, "talk about that. so first to point it looks like something they are and what they are seems to indicate that when the transfers received it appears to matter a lot. she talked about the paper by hilary kline and doug bowman. not that the united states, this is my candidate best map ever of the united states. it is not red and green. it's not red and blue. it is green and it is this paper that tries to take it and changed by the way in which the food stamp program rolled out in the 1960s and 1970s. usually when a program most out it comes out at the same time nationally are these consonant

tires date. in the case of food stamps, it was county specific. so the dirt reading shows counties have adopted food stamps later in this 20 year period. the lighter green is earlier. you see a lot of days, especially in the south appalachia where counties behave very differently within the saints days. so you can literally have kids born on the same day, living in the same day a few miles apart were one within in a county that had food stamps well before the baby was kind enough and another might be it in a neighboring county workers and student began until the child was age three or age five rh seven. so we'll take it managing the timing of the food stamp was ruled out with respect to birth date and then but 20, 30, 40 years later to see whether the

timing of the rollout to correlate with health and economic aid. so this paper enables you to track year-by-year according to the time when food stamps are introduced in the county to so this is oriented towards exactly that on the left hand side you have kids who were conceived in counties where food stamps was already baird and as you move to the right, food stamps again later and later with respect to the first year. just to set things, this is an index of metabolic syndrome. it's very pretty is of cardiovascular problems. so higher scores are bad and this is just taking the kids who were early middle childhood to almost adolescent as the comparison group.

so let's consider their scores to be zero, the reference group and we want to see to what extent you have metabolic syndrome rates that were either higher or lower, relative to this group of kids who were in counties where food and to introduce in childhood here this is a standardized scale, seven minus .5 at the beginning to tap the standard deviation lower on this metabolic syndrome is so forth. so what does the wind look like? very dramatic graded relationship between the age at which food stamps was received, relative to a birth year. so way off to the left, kids who were in counties that already had food stamps years before they work the, had point for standard deviation lower levels of metabolic syndrome. 30 years later. and as you get closer and closer

to the birth year, that starts to increase and early childhood increases for goods of the later the introduction of his fans, the worst that the child was 40 years later terms of how. the worst off to chat with in terms of economic date, which was the other thing like that. the systematic evidence about potential importance of transfers early in life and it's mirrored by a number of other studies that chris and reviews for the evidence seems to point to benefit when the income was received relatively early in life compared to later in life. if you look at the negative income tax experiment, there is evidence to that effect and achievement effects not universally across size, but by and large impacts of the negative income tax payments to

kid came to the larger the younger the children were. the welfare to work experience of the night 90s, save them. they tended to be positive impacts on the kids were just in school or even some negative impacts when welfare when they were older. same result type about that positive impacts of having the opportunity to move to the section eight voucher when the kid was under 13 but older than 13 were negative impacts on health insurance the same thing. there's a fairly consistent literature pointing to the importance of the timing of the transfer with respect to the child's age. why should early receive matter most? kristin taught about the really interesting by a radical interest to that effect. it's a much broader set of things as well.

school atomic game. neighborhood effects haven't kicked in. careers are in their youngest ages your family income is the lowest and finally, early on parent were most overwhelmed and least mature, least able to handle the burden spared when there is assistance early on in life for reasons you can imagine the tax being larger. if there is a case there's some policy conundrums. wic direct it towards young kids, but by and large we really don't differentiate our transfer programs according to the agent. if we really think that transfers benefit families with young kids more than they do older kids, maybe we should add a supplement to the earned income tax credit in the case of families have young kids to think about taking the existing pot of money in reallocating if

the families get larger benefit and relatively smaller benefits when they don't. section eight, you know, the evidences for pot of impacts and the kids are under 13 years old, that they are just as negative as the positive coefficients were when the kids were older than dirt. he set up a section eight housing vouchers so that it only provide eligibility for families when it got young kids. some of who fans have young kids older than dirt team, too. we need to think about how policy needs to address this problem that there seemed to be benefits more positive than the early years. and then i also took issue with it but the strength of kristin's conclusion about the remarkably consistent evidence. if you take section eight, for

example, roche did find these uniformly positive results, but uniformly negative results for the kid who were older than dirt team. mto was an experiment that involves families living just in public housing and very high poverty nape country neighborhoods. not universe will section eight program at all and indeed there's another evaluation of the broader section program in chicago, brian jacob that doesn't find benefit, a little bit at younger ages, but not much until older ages. i'd be a little bit more circumspect in this cup of the conclusions and then i have got some other comments that i will provide to christine so that is it. thank you very much. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you very much. i want to tell everybody we have two papers written for this conference by chris dan and sarah turner and they are available on our website if you want to get them and they both have a wonderful discussion and services many studies if you want to learn more. so ms. griffin, go. >> thanks very much. so part of the reason we did this as it seems to be sort of but not an expert in the field at all, but casually the evidence is getting more compelling that a lot of these programs do have a long-term effect then we should think of bad as having a large investment component. ..

>> i will just answer your question about the paper. the indio is really important and it's not just about housing. it's about changing peoples neighborhoods. it's probably closer to basic science than it is this is how you rollout a policy. as you said what do you do with that was of a 13-year-old-year-old and a two-year-old? that's hard for policymakers and it does tell us the environment changes and the evidence of the papers people didn't change their environment.

that might be because it's quite hard to find a place to live in a very different neighborhood. i think as policymakers and thinking about policy you do want to think about what would families do if we just gave them cash and if you want to change their behavior even more, you have to think about one of the places where they wouldn't be able to do the same thing with cash. so health insurance on the private market, you get -- teaching people about the importance of the environment and how you moved to a different environment or how you improve the environment, that would probably give you something different from that perspective. >> i'm a believer to the extent that i'm best at the last four years of my life -- [inaudible] okay. i'll talk louder. trying to set up an experiment that would enroll mothers mother

mothers were just given birth, into two groups come either getting $4000 a year for three years or not, then it's a collaboration with the neuroscientist who try to see to what extent kids brains are getting wired differently as a result of cash transfers. we can also add to the list, we spend $100 billion a year almost on child allowance. it's embedded in our tax system as child exemption, child tax credit, the additional child tax credit. you add it up and it's $96 billion a year. it's paid annually instead of monthly. it's paid in recognition of the fact that families with kids have greater need for income. and yet families of no taxable income get nothing. so if you really think about a more reasonable approach, it would be more along the lines of a universal child allowance,

where you don't condition it on taxable income. we are hoping our rct will be funded, if people have ideas for the additional $4 million we would appreciate that. i do think the strength of the evidence that kristin reviews is such that the weight of the evidence is probably in favor of thinking that these cash transfer programs you have a component that's benefiting kids perhaps in the long-term. >> think about going be on some of these cash programs and think about universal basic income or something. you think about those, people say that's a real waste because you will be giving money to everybody with kids or every family to make sure there's some minimum and a lot of people don't need it. but then you do have, you don't have to worry so much about labor supply. when you look at the research that you wer you are doing it se it was mostly the income that

mattered. how do we think about whether or not the programs will be even more effective if we didn't worry about labor supply disincentives? >> spirit that's a good question. [laughter] >> i think mostly the labor supply disincentives are something that we should worry about that much when were looking at these programs for low income children. i think we should try to make sure that they have the basic things that they need and be willing to say sometimes, the evidence does not suggest those labor supply affects offset the investments that were trying to make. >> we need to worry about the cumulative effect of marshaling tax rates going higher and higher. on average, marshall tax rates are about 33 cents on the dollar i think for the transfer programs we have out there.

so there can be disincentives and we want to make sure that when we do put in place a whole set of programs that they don't end up with very high marginal tax rates and for a substantial labor. student do you think this huge emphasis works? we are always think about getting people to work as being primary 50 think there's too much emphasis? and used to be the idea of giving the subsidies to mothers was so they didn't have to work. so they could stay home with her kids. you think the politics have gotten it wrong? because they don't think about the importance of these early years. >> i think there are different people are going to react in different ways. some people are quite capable of going off and getting a job, but mostly we see from what we've seen from welfare reform that children don't do better if the

parents just get a job and total resources to exactly the same. there needs to be some supplementation there. again, what are the long-term consequences of that that, do fy and on the job and how to do wages grew over time? i don't think we know the answer to that but i'm somewhat suspicious. >> it's such a difficult thing to orient a political discussion away from labor supply towards anything else. throughout the welfare reform debate through the 1990 1990s is trying with a bunch of other people to provide research and arguments about consequences for kids, right? and back in the wealth for reform days there were predictions of what welfare reform with you for kids. there was daniel patrick moynihan would say we putting children to the sword, and then other people would say well, but the parents are working, it's going to be a positive role model, it's going to be a good

thing for kids. but despite those predictions there was absolutely no content in the debate over welfare reform that was focused on kids at all. it was all focused on labor supply. if you think about a few years ago debating cutting food stamps, i predict this time only think about the safety net changes will be making in light of tax cuts, all the rhetoric is going to be around hammocks and lazy parents, and nothing is going to be about potential consequences for kids spin i think what you're going to hear in that debate, the war has been a complete failure. it hasn't got rid of poverty. poverty is as high as it ever was. how do we take this evidence that these things have long run effects? you counter that, the war on poverty has been a failure? >> i don't think there's evidence the war on poverty has been a failure. if you take into account what

happens after you do the transfer, the point of the transfers, and poverty has quite a lot. so i think that would be a misreading of the evidence to say there has been no effect on poverty. but i think, i will echo what i anticipate the debate will be about, labor supply affects, editing by reading of the evidence would say it should be about what do children need at critical times of development in order to fundamentally affect their capacities as adults? i think we have we running a great risk if we let them not have the things that they need as they develop. >> during the welfare reform debate there really wasn't that much evidence that could be debated, right, about impacts on kids. what the paper shows if the last five to 10 years there's been an explosion, very interesting, very terrible studies a valley ringed the impact of these programs that is really starting to put on the table pretty

strong evidence with regard to the impacts on kids for later life outcomes. we can choose to ignore that information at least it's there and it's much stronger than it used to be. >> is going to ask if you're going to increase spending, what might you choose, but i think also let's think of the other way which is what are the things we should be most worried about about being kept going forward if we're going to be worried about the long-term impact on kids? the evidence is important to say it medicaid aren't housing or is there anything there to think about in terms of ranking? >> i would think health insurance. health insurance is tricky because you don't expect immediate impacts on health. health is stock, not a flow and yet have something go wrong with you that health care could have either prevented or ameliorated before you will see the effects of health insurance. but these longer-term studies do seem to show that expanding

medicaid in fact had a first order effect of allowing children to have more medical care and better coverage, and if these long-term impact say it's had a big impact on health and the productive capacity. and those are things it's quite hard for families to buy on their own even if you were to give them cash. >> so the self and everything else. i think everything else can kind of be lumped together in terms of what's happening to the aggregate resources that are being made available to low income -- >> you just want to get about the total. we have the time for a few audience questions from the audience. can you stand up? say where you're from police. >> independent consultant. question two kristin and anyone else been any specific reason you didn't include head start as a baseline with experiment if you had an additional $10 billion? >> i guess the reason i didn't is because i thought it'd been

really well covered in other places and that these other programs had relatively less coverage. >> george. suggestion, i'll make it real quick. a lot of the work being done on technological change and its implications for the wage side as opposed to the labor side talks about income supports as a part of the solution. so that drags all of this into the more modern era, and i would love to hear your responses to that. >> this question is mostly for greg duncan. you seem to be more willing than i seem to be willing to, to redirect some of the current safety net investments from older children to younger children.

i want to ask you a push you to think a little bit about how we think about the short-term impacts versus the long-term impact. i think that's based on long-term impacts but there's some short-term impact. for example, a 15-year-old isn't getting enough to eat. he might get other things that are socially problematic in a way that a two-year-old wouldn't. so how do we think about those? >> any of those questions, yeah. >> even for short-term impacts, especially achievement, school school achievement and to some extent social behavior, right, the evidence is still fairly come in the way that we package assistance, right, welfare, for example, we lump together cash programs with incentives that change labor supply, right? one of the things that was

discovered in the 1990s was when you both increased work and income, you had this positive impacts of the younger kids, right, and should and should negative income tax for the negative kids -- older kids because the kids were stuck, the teenage kids were stuck caring for the younger siblings, and that interfered with schoolwork and so forth. and you've got, with these dramatic differences between benefits depending on the age. i'm not saying eliminate, when you redistribute the yankees, unless i get up completely but a of the evidence suggests leaving it somewhat more towards young kids make sense. i don't think we answered the question that changes in technology.

i think we are in a new era where the robots may be coming for us all, and to the extent that it's harder for people to get a job in the low-wage labor market i think these are going to be even more salient issues about how do we support -- [inaudible] >> -- the problem we have is that this room is committed at the end of our program this afternoon so we can go over too long. first of all i want to thank kristin and greg for feeding more information into the time we allowed them that i thought was humanly possible. extremely efficient and appreciate that. so please join me in thanking them for. [applause] >> way of a challenge. we have half an hour for lunch. there are sandwiches in the room on the other side of the aisle

here. there are some tables there pick your free to take sandwiches and sit at a table there if you can find to see. you're free to bring the sandwiches in you. the drinks in the back in the hallway out here, so we are going to reconvene at 1:15 so please eat fast. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]