Boardroom Confidential with Merriden Varrall

BENNETT MASON

Hello and welcome to Boardroom Conversations. I'm Bennett Mason, and thanks very much for joining us. This is a podcast from the Australian Institute of Company Directors. And in each episode, we have candid conversations with some of Australia's top directors, leaders and experts. We'll be delving into their backgrounds and discussing many of the key stories that boards are grappling with. Our guest this time is Merriden Varrall, an expert in foreign affairs. She helps companies and organisations understand international relations and develop strategies for dealing with complex geopolitical issues. Merriden’s the CEO of Vantage Geopol and a Special Advisor on Geopolitics for KPMG, where she was a previously a partner. Merriden is also a non-resident Fellow at the Lowy Institute and formerly a diplomat for the UN in China.

MERRIDEN VARRALL

Thank you for having me.

BENNETT MASON

So, let's talk about international relations now. It's front-page news pretty much every day. We're not going to go too much into what's happening today in the world because things move pretty quickly. However, what do you see as the most significant geopolitical risks currently facing Australian boards? And how should directors prioritise them?

MERRIDEN VARRALL

Thank you. And that's such a great question to start with, because I think it's a really useful way to frame the whole topic and the way in which boards do need to be thinking about them, because if you're as a board director focussed on what happened this morning or what happened last night, as you say, by tomorrow, that won't be relevant. So how do boards then think about geopolitics in a way that's going to be useful for strategic planning and for continuity and sustainability, which is what they need to be doing. And so, we try really hard to think about what's behind the headlines, what's behind that noise, and think about the themes that the megatrends, for want of a better expression. And what we have tried to do is put together a set of risk scenarios that capture some of these trends and that are most relevant for Australian businesses. And so, in that report that we have done the three scenarios that we came up with through this risk assessment process was the first. The first one is called “Crisis Hits: We're Not Prepared.” The second is called “The Death of Truth and Trust.” And the third is “Walls, Moats and Stranger Danger.” So, to break that down for you, the first idea, “Crisis Hits: We're not Prepared.” What we did there was we looked at some key risks. The convergence of climate disasters, biodiversity loss, energy market instability and food insecurity, and the way in which this risk process, this risk assessment works is you look at the interconnections of those things and those are very, very tightly connected. The implication of that is that many businesses are underprepared for the compounding effects of these crises, especially when there are so many short-term demands that are taking people's time and attention. But the point of what we've learnt from that is that we need to be making sure that we're looking at the long term, while we're planning for the short term at the same time. The second scenario is the “Death of Truth and Trust.” And this is about a story about the global erosion of trust in public institutions and politics. And that's really happening around the world. And there are two major implications for that. The first is that businesses are increasingly expected to fill the trust gap. And this is an interesting conundrum, because at the same time as you're having this kind of social and political polarisation, what does it mean to be the trustworthy one? What values, whose values are you going to align with when there's such a fragmentation of what is good? And you have this really fertile ground for populism in this scenario. And then when populist leaders come in, even if they don't win an election, they really influence the narrative, and the political discourse and things move away from the centre. Things move to the left or the right, and in the last sort of ten years when we've had this particular recent rise in populism, it's a move to the right. But whichever way it goes, populists generally try to undermine the checks and balances on democratic power because they identify themselves with the people. And those things are stopping us, the people from executing our will. So domestically, they erode those institutions like a free and fair judiciary or an open and free media. And this has huge implications for business who need transparency, stability, accountability. Internationally, populist leaders have the same kind of view. They're very sceptical about international institutions. They have this feeling that they want to protect themselves, that cooperation is a vulnerability, not an opportunity. And they think that international institutions are undermining their sovereignty, don't like them. So that's that second idea. And then, of course, relatedly, the third theme, the third story, “Walls, Moats and Stranger Danger.” This is about rising re-globalisation, increasing concerns about national security and geopolitical fragmentation. So the implication for that is that countries are shifting towards selective partnerships based on geopolitical logic, based on shared values, which is increasing competition and diminishing cooperation, Just at the same time as we have a world in which increasing cooperation is necessary to provide the security that is needed for the challenges that we face. So, to cut that long story short, these are the geopolitical risks that are facing boards. These are the kinds of scenarios that matter. And boards need to be thinking about long term strategic picture and building things in place Now. They need to also be responding to the short-term things that happened this morning and then tomorrow morning. But they cannot lose sight of those broader stories as well.

BENNETT MASON

We're living in fairly extraordinary times. This is a period of great uncertainty in many ways. That's possibly a departure from previous times, previous eras when maybe volatility wasn't quite so pronounced. So how has the nature of geopolitical risk evolved over the past decade, do you think? And what does that mean for boards?

MERRIDEN VARRALL

Yeah, you're right. I think that the word “unprecedented” has now been used in unprecedented amounts. That's because over the last ten years, things have really shifted. And there's not any particular single cause for that shift. But you can look at things like the Global Financial Crisis and the way in which that affected, emerging economies or developing countries’ views of the legitimacy of the Western story, the global construct from the western point of view. That that that the West had it right. Turns out maybe the West didn't have it as right as they thought they did. So, over the last ten years, things like that, things like Covid, have really pushed the geopolitical landscape into a whole new qualitative and quantitative dimension of uncertainty. And a couple of years ago, the World Economic Forum, for example, made up a new word in order to describe it, because there weren't any words that they thought were sufficient. So, they came up with this word of “polycrisis.” And it's the idea that the outcome of the risks put together is greater than the sum of the parts. And so, we've always had tensions. We've always had conflicts. We've always had disputes over territory. Nothing new there. But there is a qualitative difference in what we're experiencing now because the intensity of them, the interconnectedness of them, and the frequency of them is increasing. And we see that in competition among nation states, great power competition, but also a competition between these two visions of the world, one in which Western hegemony is a nice idea and Western rules-based order is a good thing, and one in which it isn’t. We see it in the way that the climate crisis is exacerbating, as well as causing its own geopolitical challenges and problems. We see it in the rise of populism around the world and the implications of that, and we see it in tech competition as well. So, all of these kinds of trends have been playing for the last ten years or so, intensifying and intensifying. And we're now in a moment where we have to accept that this is the new normal.

BENNETT MASON

it's reasonably easy to see how geopolitics impacts some of Australia's largest companies, especially if they're a multinational or a major exporter. I think if you're a miner sending coal or iron ore overseas, it's pretty clear that geopolitics is a major issue. But what about different sorts of organisations? What about SMEs or even NFPs? How can international relations or geopolitical risk impact them?

MERRIDEN VARRALL

You're right to call out that impacts different industries, different types of organisations in different ways. And that's really important because you cannot have a kind of cookie cutter approach, one size fits all approach to dealing with geopolitical risk, because it's going to matter in different ways. But if you use electricity, if you use a phone, if you use a computer, geopolitics is going to matter to you. If you think about SMEs, they often rely on imported goods for components. So do political tensions like tariffs, like trade, restrictions, shipping delays are going to impact your availability and your costs and indeed possibly your ability to operate and continue to do the things that you have always done. Cyber security threats matter just as much to SMEs and to NFPs as they matter to bigger companies. And perhaps SMEs don't have the same kind of capabilities for resilience to cyber security as some of the bigger organisations. I think also not for profits, are finding themselves in an unusual situation because geopolitics is now affecting donor dynamics, shifts in foreign aid policy, in programming, in philanthropic priorities, in government funding. All of these things are making a huge difference to not-for-profits. And it's geopolitical. It's about power. Of course there's regulatory ripple effects which affect SMEs, and it feeds as much as anybody else. Access to talent, is becoming more complicated because of geopolitical volatility. And I think the question about reputation and values alignment also matters a lot to SMEs. And NFPs too. So again, it’s different across different industries, different sizes, everyone has their own exposure. But certainly, all of those things are going to matter to. And if space and SMEs as well.

BENNETT MASON

So, we've got this extraordinary environment, remarkable volatility, uncertainty, heightened geopolitical risk. What should board members be doing? What should directors be asking their executives and management teams about geopolitical risk?

MERRIDEN VARRALL

I think that the first question that board members, board directors should be asking is, are you thinking about this? Is this on your radar? What are we doing about it? And is that sufficient? Have we tested it? Have we audited it ourselves internally to ensure that this is sufficient? And again, there's no cookie cutter answer to that, but we need to ensure that we are bringing that longer term perspective into the things that we're doing today. Because, say, for example, the impact that climate change will have on the stability of our region. If we're a company which is looking to diversify our portfolio, to make sure that we're not over relying on any particular actor, we're looking at the rest of Southeast Asia, maybe as an opportunity, we’re thinking about various countries there. But if we're not thinking about how climate change, among other things, and we have to have this holistic picture here, could and will impact Southeast Asia, and we think that we're going to continue to make X, sell X and just sell it to someone else. We're being frightfully naive because the whole picture of Southeast Asia, the whole picture of Africa, many of these developing and emerging nations is going to be fundamentally different. So, we have to be looking at that long term trajectory. Are we in ten years, in 15 years, going to be able to make what we make and sell what we sell and do what we do in the world That will be. So, we really have to be thinking now about planning for that. But of course, is the short term and the short-term questions are how are we monitoring geopolitical volatility? How do we know what's happening in the South China Sea? What kind of data points and signals have we set up so that we're getting the information that we need? What scenario planning have we done? What action plans have we put in place. So, there are really bite sized doable things for the short term as well. But boards need to be, I think, really examining the organisation's preparation resilience. And that's both in terms of navigating risk. But also, what are the opportunities for the future going to be?

BENNETT MASON

A lot of board members will read the newspaper, they will watch TV news, they'll listen to podcasts and radio. That's a great way of staying up to date with current affairs. But what more can boards do to get on top of geopolitical risk? How can they become more geopolitically literate?

MERRIDEN VARRALL

So, I think reading the news, etc. etc. often that's what is going to tell you the thing that's just happened. And if you're on a board, you want to know that thing before it's happened. So having things in place that are mapping trends is just as important, if not more important, as finding out what just happened this morning. And it's probably a bit of a dramatic example. But if we think about, Russia and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, most people were completely surprised by that. Taken aback. “Gosh, didn't see that coming. That will never happen.” Even the day before, people were saying, “No, he won't.” But British and US intelligence said that he would because they were looking at the troops, where they were going. They were thinking about his particular worldview and his particular mindset. How does he see the world? What does Ukraine mean to him? It doesn't necessarily make sense at all from a rational Western cost and benefit analysis. But it totally makes sense if you look at it from that perspective. So, boards need to be thinking about understanding the world and tracking those trends so that they know what's happening before it happens. Horizon scanning, I guess people call it.

BENNETT MASON

I'm wary of going too much into specifics, but it would be good to go in-depth on maybe just a few geopolitical issues. How should boards think about the China-US relationship and what are the implications for business operations in our region, the Asia Pacific?

MERRIDEN VARRALL

It's this is a really important one for us because, of course, as we all know and have heard umpteen times, China is Australia's biggest trade partner. And the US is Australia's main strategic ally. So as Professor Hugh White from the ANU, I heard him say once, “That's great for Australia to have those two horses. And we're trying to have one foot on either of those horses. Great. You do strategy. You do trade. Fantastic. So long as the horses are running in parallel.” If the horses are not running in parallel, you're going to land on your bum and it's going to be very unpleasant. Now, the US-China relationship, while there’s moments of warmth and moments of – “détente” is going too far. There's moments of warmth. There's moments where it looks like they're having conversations and they're going to negotiate something. It is structurally on a downward spiral. The way that China sees the US and the way that the US sees China is so suspicious and so mistrustful that it is fundamentally impossible for them to ever get back to how things were 15 years ago, even ten years ago. So, America had an idea in the past that engagement was the way to work with China. The idea that China would eventually become more politically liberal and into the world as a politically liberal actor. Now, they were very, very wrong about that. China, on from its point, has a view that the US is determined to prevent it from what it sees as reclaiming its rightful role in the world. It believes that America is going to try and always keep it down. So, when you've got those two beliefs and neither of them are at all open to being, both of them had this sense of kind of unique uniqueness, and destiny. Neither of them are going to give. And so, you're going to have structural decline in that relationship. Right? So, for Australia, we're in a pickle because our horses are running in two different directions. We need to be thinking about what that means for our security and our strategy. And we need to be thinking about what that means for us in trade, in economic terms as well. And we need to be really, really clever and sophisticated and nuanced in our thinking. My feeling is that we've had it so good for so long. We're not quite warmed up. We haven't quite warmed up our muscles on this one. And we could be doing more to think about what is it actually going to mean when the US and China, really that de-risking has evolved to a point where it's profound and fundamental. And we are trying to have digital interoperability with Asian markets who are using Chinese systems. But we won't be using those Chinese systems, for example. So, there's a real myriad of ways in which we need to be thinking very hard about what it means when that divide becomes wider and wider.

00:19:50:16 - 00:20:22:18

BENNETT MASON

As you said, as many people are aware, China is Australia's largest trading partner. Despite that, a lot of Australian organisations are de-risking when it comes to China. They’re diversifying into the markets they sell to or diversifying their supply chains. What does that mean in practical terms for Australian boards? And where's that line between being cautious and perhaps overreacting too far?

MERRIDEN VARRALL

Again, this will be different for different industries and for different organisations, of different sizes. But in practical terms, it means, as you say, diversifying supply chains, ensuring that we're not overexposed to any individual single actor, regardless of who that is. How do we think about that in our organisational structure, we'll have to be tracking compliance requirements around national security guidelines. We’ll have to be thinking about tech and data governance. What tech platforms are we investing in? What standards are they adhering to? It will mean careful monitoring and reporting about strategic communication, as well as stakeholders will want to know about ethical sourcing, human rights, national security. When we think about the difference between caution and overcorrection, China is still China. China’s market is still China's market, and we can't ignore that. And there are very practical implications, and operational challenges to de-risking around quality issues, around cost increases, around logistical complexity. So, while boards do need to be thinking in different ways about what they do and where they do it, abandoning ship isn't necessarily going to be the answer. Well-informed decision making is going to be critical to this, really well-informed. We cannot have the kind of glib complacency that enthusiasm has meant I think many of us have. I mean, glib complacency is probably a little bit harsh. We cannot have the kind of enthusiasm that we have had in the past about operating in China. We have to be much more well-informed. We have to know our exposures. We have to know our resilience. We have to model what potential changes in the bilateral relationship will mean for our businesses. We need to keep an eye on government strategy and policy, including what is considered to be strategic or critical, right? Because de-risking starts with the strategic or critical. But the definition of that changes and expands.  EVs are increasingly considered to be strategic or critical and they're just cars. So, we need to be making sure that we're thinking about those political changes and what they're going to mean for our business.

BENNETT MASON

Just about every board member will be well aware of the tensions between the US and China. But what are some of the more underappreciated or emerging geopolitical risks that you think boards should be paying more attention to?

MERRIDEN VARRALL

I think this is a really important question, and it goes back to the earlier point that we were making about reading the newspapers. We have to be able to cut through noise. There's an awful lot of noise. I think that it's critical for boards to be thinking in broader thematic terms. And I think perhaps there are three areas that we under appreciate. Climate-driven geopolitical tensions I referred to earlier and looking particularly at Africa and our own Asian region here. Climate change, even if we keep to 1.5 degrees, is going to mean food insecurity and water insecurity, which will exacerbate tensions, which will create conflicts and competition. It will mean migration pressures. It will mean the mass movement of tens of millions of people. There's no way that that can happen and that there's no impact, there's no disruption. So, boards, I think, might be overlooking how climate change risks intersect with the geopolitical ones, especially in those areas of energy and water and agriculture. The second area that I think boards might be under cooking in geopolitical risks is populism. We see people around the world increasingly angry, increasingly feeling marginalised, increasingly feeling that their elites, have left them behind, have failed them, are either incompetent or corrupt or both. And this trend, I think, isn't going away. This is something that is here to stay. And so, you see this move away from the centre of politics to the left and the right, and you see those populist tendencies that we talked about earlier. Domestically and internationally, that has a huge impact on business operations and strategies that we need to be considering. And I think the third is geo-economic fragmentation, the idea that the world is fracturing into these kind of values blocs. And we are splitting according to who we think we can trust. What's really interesting and complicated about that, I think, is that that's generally a nation state understanding and conceptualisation, right? The government thinks that we can't trust X, Y, or Z, but the business community is not always in the same position. And so, we have this conundrum where the government feels like you really shouldn't be doing that. And that's a little bit scary and a bit dangerous, and you bit overexposed. But the business community sees it really, really differently. In Japan in 2022, the Japanese government introduced legislation that geo-economic considerations had to be put above commercial considerations in all business decisions. So, this is a bit where the government says no, you just have to do it. Now Australia hasn't gone that far, but certainly Australian government Agencies are trying to build businesses understanding of how they understand the risk landscape, but they really still are a big difference in those. So, I think that the business community needs to understand what that broader landscape is. And this is again about risk and opportunity, because where the government thinks they need to invest in something strategic, something critical, even if it doesn't make economic sense, that's where money and opportunity will be. And that's where businesses need to be thinking about looking for opportunities.

BENNETT MASON

Supply chains are an area where we see great opportunities, but also massive risks. This, of course, became an enormous issue during the pandemic, and supply chains have just remained a key issue for boards ever since then. How can boards build resilience across their supply chains, and how can they do it in a way that balances those areas like cost, like agility and like geopolitical exposure?

MERRIDEN VARRALL

So, during Covid, we saw, I think, a pretty broad shift into a “just in case” approach to supply chains, as opposed to a “just in time” approach. But pretty shortly after Covid, I think most businesses went back to a “just in time” way of thinking. I'd suggest that that logic of Covid needs to be kept close to the front of mind for businesses. we can't rely on “just in case” In the same way as we used to. Now, that doesn't mean you have to flip to 180 degrees to “just in time”, but I think it would be very wise for boards and businesses to have a “just in” case model up their sleeve that they can be putting in place when it's going to be needed. Ensuring that we have a backup plan, I guess, is thinking about this. Diversifying sourcing and logistics, not over relying on a particular country or supplier, mapping your supply chains down as far as you can go. And this is much easier now with AI tools to help us. And if you can find a nub, that's a choke point. Do something about it. Make sure that that nub isn't going to be the thing that makes you fall apart, should there be a tension or a risk in that spot. Put in those data points and those signals that we've been talking about so that you what might be a potential risk on your supply chain before it happens. So, if you use the example of the South China Sea, know when the boats, the coast guards, vessels, are moving. Know what is happening inside Filipino politics and the relationship between the Philippines and China at any given time, so that those data points and signals are ready to go and you've got a “just in case” model up your sleeve, so that you can bring that in as needed. So really, it's about planning. It's about preparing, and it's about having something in place that you can introduce when it's needed.

BENNETT MASON

Tell us how you work with your clients. What are those clients asking you about geopolitical risk and how do you help them?

MERRIDEN VARRALL

We've seen a really interesting shift, I think, over the last seven years that I've been in KPMG, from geopolitics being something interesting but not particularly pertinent to now, something that is desperately pertinent. And so, people want to know what's happening, what does it mean for me, and what am I going to do about it?

BENNETT MASON

So, you're busier.

MERRIDEN VARRALL

It's very busy. It's very busy. But it's a slightly different question now because in the past it wasn't “What are we going to do about it?” Because it was just interesting. But surely wasn't going to mean anything to us. Now it is, “We need to take action. How do we translate this enormity into practicality? How do we take some steps?” And so we try to address all of those steps in a clear way, instead of talking about this morning, this afternoon, tomorrow's changes in the headlines, we talk about the broader themes, the bigger shifts that they need to be aware of. What that means for business, what does it mean if we have more of a geopolitical logic than an economic, rational logic in the way that governments are making decisions? And once you understand that understanding, then we have to get into what does it mean for your business? That depends on the business, of course. And then what are you going to do about it? And these are these bite sized chunks, these steps that I suggest that businesses really consider. Do the kind of risk assessment, that isn’t about an X/Y axis of discrete disconnected risks. That just doesn't work anymore. Risks just don't work like that. You need to have a much more multi-dimensional, risk matrix to understand it. Think about what those scenario models are going to be. Think about what your action plans are going to be. So that's what we try to do, just step clients through those levels and layers and set them up for being able to navigate risk and identify opportunity into the future.

BENNETT MASON

Is it difficult sometimes explaining to boards how this volatility, how this geopolitical uncertainty works? I mean, they might ask you, what are the percentages that a certain event will happen. How do you answer a question like that?

MERRIDEN VARRALL

In terms of the likelihood like how? Well yes, there are ways of tracking that. We have a partnership, for example, with Eurasia Group. And one of the things that Eurasia Group does is track the likelihood of the base case of something happening, a particular event happening in Ukraine or wherever else. So, it's quite possible to do that. It's just a matter of expertise and analysis to put all of the factors together and come up with an intelligent conclusion.

BENNETT MASON

Before you came back to Australia. You've lived and worked in China for a long time. Almost a decade even. How did your time there shape your thinking on China? What did you learn?

MERRIDEN VARRALL

I learnt that it's really, really hard to know anything about China. We used to observe that you could tell how long someone had been in China by how confident they thought they were about it. And there was a particular point at about three months when people they'd come in, they were a bit confused for a while, and then at three months they’d go, “I think I get this.” Like, oh, you've been here three months, haven't you? And then after that you realise you were profoundly wrong, and you didn't know anything at all. So, I learnt that it's really hard to understand and that if you think you understand it, you're probably wrong. And so, when you hear people say “Well, obviously China is trying to do this” and “Well, clearly China is trying to do that.” I’m sceptical always because it's very unlikely to be right. I did a lot of travel. I travelled a lot around the west, in the north of China. I went to Mongolia and Xinjiang and Tibet, and I saw that disparity between wealthy and not at all wealthy. And I began to understand a little bit the way that the emphasis that the government, the party state has on building prosperity and lifting people out of poverty because it is a key pillar of the social contract between people and the party state, your life will be better than your parents life. And for an enormous number of people, that's not true. Better in the way of understanding things is a kind of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It's a material kind of betterness. But it's critically important for the government that these people are lifted out of poverty. I learnt that people, I mentioned this kind of social contract between people in the party state, there's an enormous amount of trust among people in the party state, at the central level, at the local level and the provincial level. People believe that their party officials might be less than perfect. But they see that the success of China so far and the future potential of China is absolutely because of and will be in the hands of the party state. And we, when we look from the outside, we don't see that. I don't think we understand that. We think Chinese people are oppressed by the party state. “This party state is an authoritarian regime.” But the experience, and the perspectives of the people within China are not the same. And I also saw how much mistrust there is in the outside world and the really complicated relationship that that China has with the outside world. I was living in student accommodation when NATO accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, and I was away in Tibet at the time. And when I came back to my student dorm, I couldn't get into the dorm. There were thousands and thousands and thousands of Chinese students and others protesting outside my student dorm, and we couldn't get through unless we could prove we weren't from NATO. We had to show our Australian passports. And these people, the week before had been our friends had been wanting to do English language practice with us. We'd been hanging out. Now just under the surface, so quick to switch, was this visceral, visceral hatred. And Australians had to go out with their passports to get food for other people. And if delivery people came in and they were delivering for an American or another member of NATO, the delivery person would be attacked for being for being a traitor to China. So, this this complicated understanding of China vis a vis the rest of the world is so, so deeply held. It's quite extraordinary.

BENNETT MASON

You've had a number of different roles. You've been a diplomat, academic, policy advisor. You are now a business consultant for KPMG. Some of those roles are similar in many ways, but they can also be quite different. How have those different roles shaped your perspectives on geopolitical risk?

MERRIDEN VARRALL

I think they're probably two main areas. Academia changed the way that I ask questions and the way that I think. My undergraduate was all in international relations, foreign policy, political science. But when I went to do my PhD, I wanted to find a way to ask why that was so. And so, I did political anthropology. I wanted to understand Chinese foreign policy, the reasons that it was the way it was. So, I did this political anthropology approach. And the fundamental of it is that you always ask why? Why is that? You question the assumptions. Is that really why it is? And you dig and you dig and you dig. And when I'm thinking about geopolitical risk now, that's fun. That's so important to it. It's so important because there are so many assumptions. We build up a particular image of a certain country or the way they do things, but when we dig into it, we see that that's layer and layer and layer of assumption, and many of those assumptions can be challenged. And then if they're challenged, we end up with a different picture at the top. And so that's one thing that I think really came out of my academic background. “Why is that? Are you sure? How come? Why prove it?” Diplomacy at the UN was an interesting experience as well. And it's very different from being a diplomat for a nation state, because I wasn't pushing any nation states interests. You have to be neutral. You're obliged to try to be neutral. So, from that I see geopolitical risk. And I see these changes in the world, not necessarily as a bad thing or a good thing. They're just a thing that's happening. The world is changing. The world as it is, is not necessarily perfect. The world as it will be will not necessarily be perfect. But trying to understand things from other people's perspectives helps us to understand what these changes are and what they mean in a much more objective and neutral way.

BENNETT MASON

I think that's great advice for everyone.

MERRIDEN VARRALL

I think you can only try,

BENNETT MASON

Meriden, I could happily talk to you about these topics all day, but I know you've got other things on, so thank you for taking the time. This has been great.

MERRIDEN VARRALL

Thank you for having me.