How Innovation and Automation Transformed Treasury at a Leading University

In this week's show, you hear from Karen Carney, the treasurer at Stanford University. Karen and the team won the AFP 2025 Pinnacle Award, and I was there to see her at the conference. And I'm thrilled to say she now joins us on our podcast. Well, have a quick listen, just a little snippet from the episode.

From the outset, so Stanford has generally been quite an innovative place in general. The environment at Stanford is very, we sit in the middle of Silicon Valley, where Stanford is often called the, the heart of Silicon Valley. So there is a lot of innovation that happens at the university. Treasury, though, was— on the capital markets side, we, we were fine, but I think on the cash management side, it had been run out of a dark room in the controller's office for quite a long time. So the treasurer prior to me, there'd been a reorg. They brought capital markets, cash management, and operations and merchant uses together. But from early on when I came on board, we, with my new team, really set our North Star as streamlining and automating.

Welcome to this week's Treasury Career Corner podcast, where I interview Treasury professionals about their Treasury careers. Each and every week I talk to Treasurers about how they build their careers. Where they are now, where they see both themselves and the treasury profession going to next. Let's get on with the show. In this week's show, I'm joined by Karen Kearney, the treasurer at Stanford University. Stanford University is one of the, the world's leading research and teaching institutions with world-class scholars and 7 schools located on a single campus. Stanford offers academic excellence across the broadest array of disciplines. An engine of innovation, blending theory and practice to move ideas and discoveries from labs and classrooms out into the world. I'm going to get Karen to explain a little bit more about the university and all the other things she does. But before that, we're going to go back to the beginning of her career in audit before discovering the wonderful world that is treasuries. Karen, over to you.

Hey, Mike. Thanks so much. I really appreciate you, you having me on. So thank you. Yeah. So I'm going to date myself a little bit here. I joined PricewaterhouseCoopers while they were still a Big Eight and well before the merger with Coopers Lybrand. So I was in the London office straight out of college with a degree in economic geography. I really didn't enjoy auditing. I think that is a common refrain.

Yeah.

But I think the training was an invaluable foundation. And I would say that the two things that really have been most useful about that time and what I learned then was essentially learning the language of business. I just, make it really simple, the components of financial statements. And then second, a real, a foundational understanding of internal controls. And I think those two pieces have really stood me in good stead as my career has unfolded and even are very useful in, I would say, in my current treasury role.

And with that, you talk us through the steps in those early years and what they gave you, if you like, the first couple of roles and things.

Yeah, I have a little bit of a checkered, checkered pathway. 2 years into auditing, I was doing fine, but I looked at the partners and I just decided that it wasn't a life I wanted. I— it wasn't a ladder I wanted to climb. I didn't really like what I saw. I didn't— I felt creatively stifled, and that I was essentially on— in a sausage machine, a conveyor belt, if you like. So I agonized, obviously. I went to my staff partner who was the first woman partner in the UK practice. You know how hard she had to work to get there.

Yeah.

And told her I was leaving to go to cooking school. She was absolutely aghast, tried to dissuade me, but I knew better. I was in my early 20s and I figured that the longer I waited, the more difficult it would be to extract. Yeah. So I went ahead and attended the Cordon Bleu in London. Cutting a long story short, I worked in the field for a while, but cutting a long story short, I discovered two things about the food business. One, that I didn't have the palate to be a fine chef, and two, that business is really challenging and difficult to be a success. It's something you essentially have to be— you have to marry it. And after 3 years or so of exploration, I wasn't really willing to do that. I had some really interesting gigs, including as a personal chef to a very well-known movie star. But essentially after that, I worked my way back into finance. Initially, I was a temp at a bank in San Francisco that had a bond trustee business. So some early connections to Treasury there.

Yeah.

And while I was there, I worked for someone who was an Olympic-level swimmer, and she swam down in the master's program at Stanford. And had met a couple of folks down there. Somebody else had suggested that I look at Stanford, but I, at the time, I poo-pooed it. I didn't know a lot about the university. I was laboring under the misconception that, oh, it's a university, how complicated can it be? They teach students. I was, that was very misguided. It actually is a very large and complex institution. Anyway, my swimmer colleague had heard about a role at Stanford in financial reporting that seemed like it would be a good fit for my background. So I applied, got the job, and I credit landing there with much of my, much of the technical expertise that I was able to garner about university finances. So what I later have come to appreciate was financial reporting was one of the few places at the university where it's possible to get exposure to how the whole complex puzzle fits together. So from, from the perspective of a technical challenge, I think learning fund accounting, which is the internal accounting system used by US nonprofits who are required to manage the many different colors of money that float around in a large research institution. Those are required essentially to be managed separately as individual funds. For example, donor funds.

Can I just jump into— as you said, I remember we had our pre-chat and it's a little bit like, again, when I've talked to people when they're in financial insurance institutions, for instance, where you have your client money and you have your company money and it has to be managed but also the rigor that's around it and compliance and—

Yeah, essentially each of these funds has its own balance sheet. And at Stanford, and like many other large research institutions, we have over 45,000 of these funds, which does— it adds a lot of complexity to the internal financial management of the institution. So that's a little bit of how I got into my Stanford, at least. I'm a Stanford boomeranger, so I was here initially for 8 years in that, doing that role and a number of other finance roles and then left for about 8 years and came back again, but story for later.

Yeah. Talk me through, just let's talk about or bring us more up to date, you know, because you came back when you returned to Stanford, but Stanford, when you first started, can you describe, we, I have an image of Stanford, which you told me about before. And actually really educated me. What's Stanford like? Who, who are Stanford? You have an external view, but what's it like from internal things?

It's almost like a mini city. It has very diversified revenue sources. Most people think about a university, they think about tuition as your primary revenue source. For us, it's only about 10% of our revenue. We're an academic medical center, so we have two affiliated hospitals which, you know, are nonprofit large operations in and of themselves.

Yeah.

Doctors are— hospitals don't employ their own doctors, so all of the doctors at our hospitals are employed by the university through our medical school. So many of them teach as well as, as well as practice. Then there's the research enterprise. So that in fiscal year '25 is about a $2.3 billion enterprise. Largely funded, I would say about 80% by the federal government, a lot of healthcare, medical research. And then of course, all the auxiliary units, housing, providing food for students. We run a very large, almost a professional sports business. You probably would've seen, we had a lot of Stanford Olympians in Milano Cortina. So we have 36 varsity sports. And then all of the— you mentioned earlier in your intro, we're located in Silicon Valley on 8,200 acres. It's a very large— the physical plant is, is quite large. Yeah. So yeah, it's, it's certainly enough to keep anyone out of trouble.

I was going to say, despite the title, it's a large, massive corporate. I know when I've spoken to some of the treasurers in housing associations who said, look, we're here to make a profit, but we make a profit for our housing tenants, if you like.

Exactly.

And you guys reinvest in yourselves.

Yeah, I think I always say people often ask me what, how, what it's like to work in nonprofit and how it's different from corporate. And I think for me, the most focusing element is there is no bottom line. There are every— so faculty members in a university like ours are individual rainmakers. They're individual CEOs of their own businesses, essentially. And so they all have their own bottom lines, but it's not a financial bottom line. It's a mission-driven bottom line. So that leads to an organization that is often very consensus-oriented when it comes to decision-making and very consultative, which takes getting used to. Certainly if you come from a, from a corporate background, it does not tend to be hierarchical and top-down driven. Much more, much more bottoms up.

Yeah. And then talk us through your move into Treasury, if you will, because you've been the Treasurer there for 12, 12+ years or coming on 12 years, but you've moved into that role and you've helped shape finance there as well. Because again, I think sometimes people just come in as a Treasurer within a corporate and that's it. But you've had all this exposure, but You've been doing treasury in some of your previous roles as well, but then you've taken on this role.

So let me step back a little bit to one of the roles I had while I was on a hiatus from Stanford. I, as I said earlier, I'd done 8 years at Stanford. I cycled through a number of finance roles. So financial reporting where I started, I did a stint in one of the large academic, in the School of Medicine, one of the large academic units. We had a coordinated— an IRS-coordinated exam program where they send in a team and they just basically camp out for a couple of years. I headed up that response team, which was really interesting. And then my last role at Stanford, the first time around, was heading up as the business lead of an ERP replacement, financial system replacement. And that was— I'm going to be very honest here. I don't think anyone would be surprised— the project from hell. It almost killed me and it actually drove me— was what drove me out of Stanford the first time around. I did 3 years and it took them 10 years to get it in. It was a monster. But when I left, I moved into a CFO role at a much smaller institution, but an institution that had quite a high profile in San Francisco. And I was much more involved with, as a smaller institution and in that role, with the board. I had both the Audit and Finance Committee as well as the Investment Committee, real baptism by fire. It was pretty intimidating to go toe to toe with the likes of the captains of industry and the likes of Chuck Schwab on investment policy. But I think I really learned a lot doing that. It was hard, but I think I had to learn very quickly about the nuances of high-level relationships. And the symbiosis, especially in a smaller institution, of what can often be the outsized influence of high-value stakeholders.

Yeah.

So that was a, that was a real learning, and I think it stood me in good stead for coming back to Stanford and stepping into, into the treasurer role, because obviously I, I do work with the board, primarily the finance committee, and other high-level executive leadership. I was not a— so the Treasurer role was open for quite a while. We did a lot of interviewing of corporate treasurers, and we really found— you mentioned, you alluded to this earlier, but the— there was a real issue with the cultural fit. So this consensus-oriented decision-making environment was a, was a challenge. I had no background in treasury and my boss said to me, will you take it on? And I was like, are you crazy? I know nothing about this.

Don't worry, Matt, I'll teach you.

You know about Stanford, you can learn treasury. After about 6 months of that, I finally gave in and I said, all right, I'll give it a try, but I need to have some people. So I did have to rebuild the team. There was some folks there that were not a good fit. And that's always hard. But I was able to bring in my own team, which was very helpful. Early days, it was pretty hard. One of the challenges was just the lingo of Treasury, especially in the capital markets. I remember my first bond deal, I felt very naive. But I think once you get the hang of that, it was like anything else that's a technical competency that you learn.

You learn it.

Yeah.

When you're in that stage of, if you like, learning it, you're an experienced finance professional, you've come in, but you're fresh to Treasury. Talk us through that learning curve over the past 12 years, 10, 12 years or sort of thing. What do you think that, because also Joy, you were doing that as Treasury's evolved a lot in that past 10, 12 years.

Yeah.

Talk us through that.

From the outset, so Stanford has generally been quite an innovative place in general. The environment at Stanford is very We sit in the middle of Silicon Valley where Stanford is often called the heart of Silicon Valley. So there is a lot of innovation that happens at the university. Treasury, though, was— on the capital markets side, we were fine. But I think on the cash management side, it had been run out of a dark room in the controller's office for quite a long time. So the treasurer prior to me, there'd been a reorg. They brought capital markets, cash management, and operations and merchant services together. But from early on when I came on board, we, with my new team, really set our North Star as streamlining and automating. And that started very early on. When, right when I started, we, we had a reevaluation of how we were managing operating liquidity. And one of the things that that brought to the fore was the need for a robust cash forecast. So I brought in a data scientist, and this was about, I guess this was 2015-ish, and he, we, he did most of the heavy lifting, but we developed a first-gen AI predictive analytics cash flow model. We are just starting to see that come out in the marketplace now from the banks and the TMSs, and I routinely get pitched for take a look at our forecasting model. And frankly, the one we developed in-house performs better and has been a real asset to us. So we just chipped away at automation on an ongoing basis. We took it process by process. We didn't have a TMS. We brought in a TMS. We don't use all of the modules. We use the modules that make sense for us. Our ERP cash allocation and booking process is all automated. So it's been our debt. So we run a, we have a $6.3 billion debt portfolio and run an internal bank. So our internal borrowers are two primary purposes, obviously CapEx. So all of the, we've run about half a billion dollars of CapEx every year, and about half of that I would say is debt financed. And then the other big need in the debt space is we run a mortgage program. We live in a very— we're located in a very high cost of living area. So to attract the best faculty and students, we have to provide housing support.

Right.

So we run a pretty large debt-financed mortgage program that's part of our internal bank and have also early on automated all of that. So our internal loans, our amortization, our allocations, but there's a lot of regulation around how you can use tax-exempt financing, which we do issue. So we have both taxable and tax-exempt, but a lot of both state and federal regulation around compliance for tax-exempt debt. So managing all of that compliance. So all of that is built into a custom-built system. And we're now starting to see the marketplace develop those kinds of solutions as well. But it's nice that we've had the benefit of them for some time.

Where did, where does that come from? What I mean by that is You've already done it. Did you say people are picking up the phone and say, hey, do you want our cash management? This solution, we've already got that. We wrote it ourselves. Where does that come from? Is that someone like yourself going, we should invent this ourselves? Or that's quite unusual, I would say, because you don't get that in a corporate.

Yeah. So I think our operating environment, it's two things. I think the environment just values innovation and certainly adoption of tech. We were in the middle of Silicon Valley. It's all around us. So there's a, there's an ethos. So I think that's part of it. It's certainly an institutional value to streamlining. This is fairly recent, but streamlining of administrative systems is one of our top institutional priorities. So it's just, it's almost built in to the ethos of the institution, and it's on the academic side, and it trickles down to the administrative side as well.

And you've talked about your, the role there and things, but You, let's touch on, you recently, one of the reasons you came to, that I came across yourself was I saw you standing on stage at AFP in Boston collecting the award for, I'll let you fill in the rest. Can you talk us through what happened?

So yeah, we, last year we won the 2025 AFP's Pinnacle Award, which is for transformative change in, in finance and treasury. And yeah, this is another example of streamlining and automation. So I'm— one of my— one of the domains in Treasury is merchant services. So for those who may not be familiar with that, it's the acceptance. It started with the acceptance of credit compliant credit card payments, which there's a lot of regulation around that for data privacy reasons, but also increasingly digital payments and digital wallets as those have emerged in the marketplace. So we have over 350 merchants across campus in our community, all the way from selling football tickets, athletic event tickets, to executive education programs, to philosophy journals and podcasts. So there's a huge range of needs in terms of processing those payments, incoming payments. And we started out some time ago recognizing that our merchant services program was not really It was— it had been when the new PCI compliance requirements came to the fore, roughly 2010, the whole program had been handed over from the business side to the— to our IT side, and they'd done a great job of building infrastructure to really prioritize compliance with PCI, but it was very much belts and suspenders and it was not very flexible. So what we found was our merchants the needs were— there was a lot of frustration, needs were going unmet, and we really were not able to respond to, to what our clients needed in a customer-friendly and cost-effective way. So we brought the program back under Treasury and into the business and gradually chipped away at various elements of it. But what we won the AFP Award for was the development of an application that is essentially a straight-through processing application, very customizable front end, so easily meets the needs of these very disparate needs of these 350 merchants. And then straight-through processing of digital payments to the GL. You can choose what kind of digital payment is PCI compliant, P2PE encrypted, straight-through processing to the GL, and then auto-reconciled on the back end. So this has been hugely successful internally. It's— we've estimated that it's saved us across the campus, about $1 million in resource time. So we decided to license it and have done that. And I'm hopeful that it will bring utility to, to other potential users.

And why is it so successful? What's it come from? Or what— you've talked about the use case of it and why you're using it, but why is it so much better?

Well, it's much— it's The automation takes out a lot of the human friction, the human friction, the manual work that's involved in booking those payments and reconciling those payments. So it's really, it's automated that process in a way that's, it's, you're not going to be able to get rid of people wholesaledly, but it frees up people who are doing that work, both centrally and at the merchant level for other higher value tasks.

Do you think you as a university can do it and that some corporates struggle to do it? Is it just you've got more resource or why, or you've got a different ethos or what's about it?

I think the ethos has a lot to do with it. We have very creative people. And I think one of the things that we've increasingly learned over time in the finance domain is really trying to tap into our native creative folks on the academic side of the house. So we're increasingly using students. To help us solve business problems, talking to our faculty in the business school to tap into their expertise. And we have a lot of expertise in-house and bringing that to bear on business problems that we face is a little bit of a secret weapon.

And with yourself, you and I were just talking before the show about how you collaborate with other universities and academia and things like that. And you said, there's much more of a collegiate feel when you're working with other universities and things. Why do you think that is? Or is it, how come that, how could people best use that?

Yeah, I think it gets back to our mission and our mission really is at Stanford, we do not do secret research. And that doesn't directly relate to what we do in Treasury, but the ethos of what we do is for the benefit of the public domain on the academic side and increasingly is paralleled on the administrative side.

And you've talked about how you've worked effectively with this UNIREV system and you've done various other things, but Treasury sometimes can be, particularly maybe with institutions, not, not understood so well, you know?

Yeah.

I get it. I get the question less so now, but oh, so you do Treasury. So do you work for the government? You're like, no, that's not what we do. With yourself, how have you worked to raise the profile, obviously winning the Pinnacle Award, that's one way, but other ways you've perhaps worked to raise the profile of Treasury and understanding, are there any tips that you've got for other people listening?

Yeah, that's a really great question, Mike. We face that too. I actually was in recently in a leadership program at Stanford and I was at dinner with sitting next to a very senior academic leader and we were chatting and she said, what do you do? I said, I'm the Treasurer. 'Oh, I didn't know we had a treasurer. What does treasury do?' And there's this, there's this sense, at least in academia, that if you have budget, you just spend. And nobody thinks about who's minding the cash to make sure that, that you can meet payroll or that you can pay those vendors that you're, you're engaging with. I'm not sure that we've entirely solved that globally. What I would say is we strive really hard to be good partners to be seen as advisors and have our clients come and our co-service providers come to us for advice.

You've talked about building and leading your treasury team earlier in the show and things, but it's more as we future face, if you like, what skills do you think are mattering that are coming to the fore or matter more than they did perhaps earlier in yours and my career. I think the treasurers I was talking to 30 years ago and what they were doing, your roles have massively evolved and changed in a good way. But what do you see as now future fit or future skillset?

Yeah, that's a great question and something we're actually grappling with. We have an offsite strategic retreat in a couple of weeks and the focus is AI. I think understanding the fundamentals is always going to be important. That's just a given. I think depending on what level of the organization you're at, the balance between technical skills and people skills might be a little bit different. I think the higher up you get, the relationship management and people management becomes maybe more important. But I think all of us are going to have to get to grips with AI. We are focused— I talked earlier about our cash, our first-gen predictive analytics cash flow model. So we've done a little bit of it, but starting to bring in agentic AI and thinking about how we can use that to further streamline processes and eliminate friction— we call it friction fighting— is our next challenge. And upskilling everybody is something we're grappling with. Duquesne is an organization in the higher ed space that deals on the technology side of the house. And they have a framing for AI use cases that I really like to use. The basic productivity stuff, helping you draft emails, helping you draft presentations.

Process and things.

The fourth one is really the reimagining, the how do you bring it to bear in your workflows, in your processes, in your models. We all still use spreadsheets and spreadsheet models, and those are inherently prone to errors. How can you use these tools to mitigate those risks? But I— there is a big gap right now between the promise of AI and what it can actually do and our skill sets, and not just in Treasury, I would say throughout finance, to, to really start leveraging it. So we're We're thinking hard about how do we best do that. We're piloting things, we're putting governance frameworks in place. The state of your data is absolutely critical in terms of AI. It's the old adage, garbage in, garbage out. That hasn't changed. So making sure your data is clean, we've spent a lot of time doing that for other reasons, really for reporting reasons. So we're in pretty good shape in that regard, but there's a lot of infrastructure work, I think, that has to take place before you can really even start to leverage the tools and make sure that you're gonna get good results.

Yeah. And in actual fact, I was just looking at today's newsletter, which is great, quite crazy. Mine, the title was, Does AI Turn You Off? Because a lot of people are now, and in fact, I saw a guy, it was a great podcast actually he did, he did this amazing article. And it was really good, but he then turned, used AI to turn it into a podcast. He was doing it with value behind it. And I think actually that's a thumbs up. That's brilliant. But I think it was just also, and I commented about this on the newsletter that I'd say people are saying, am I worried about AI coming in for the reason? Yeah. But there's what these called, there's these podcast factories where they're producing 3,000 episodes a week just to rack up the hits. But the thing is they'll produce them, but then people won't listen to them. It's like on YouTube, you see someone who does the AI type video and I don't know, I see one and you can see it's enhanced. It's like, flick it off straight away. You're like, less. I think there will be natural selection. As you say, the AI slop, it's not gonna take over tomorrow. I think we're safe.

Well, and yeah, this, this, the scary sort of 1984 threat of AI taking all of our jobs away. But I just, for me, I think those critical thinking skills and the business acumen to understand what the AI is producing is always going to be really just fundamental and critical.

What I'll do is I'll actually put in our show notes, actually a link to this article actually, who was written by David Richards, which is quite weird. He's not relation. I wish he was because he's got an MBA, which is rather good, I think. But he was talking about reflecting about the industrial revolution and some of the things, but he, It was a really, what's the word, really insightful article because he was talking about the evolution of labor and how this will be and these people will win and these people will lose.

Yeah, exactly. So I think we're all going to have to adapt because I think it is an industrial revolution type order of magnitude of change and upskilling is going to be really critical.

Now I wanted to talk just briefly to your background as well. You covered it very eloquently earlier in the show where you talked about you didn't have a traditional Treasury path. Lots of people go in, discover Treasury as an analyst, bounce around, eventually, bom, and they end up as a Treasurer, whereas yours was so much wider and things. What advice would you give to someone either that's maybe early to Treasury or, you know, maybe that doesn't have a traditional path? Maybe they've listened to this podcast and they've been inspired by you. What sort of advice would you give to them about moving into Treasury maybe later on in their careers and things and developing it?

Yeah, so I think early on, if you have the opportunity to do a rotation in Treasury, I think grab it because again, Treasury is one of those places in the institution where you get to see how it all fits together. Certainly we manage all the cash that comes in the door and all the cash that goes out. So at a high level, obviously, but you need to have institutional acumen. I think is probably the most— and curiosity about what drives certain flows. Yeah. That institutional acumen is a really important foundation. And I think you can learn treasury, you can learn the technical components, and even better if you have a great team underneath you, 'cause you can— it's the complementary skill sets of the team that can be brought to bear.

Yeah.

So I, I think understanding the institution is probably the biggest skill set that you can leverage. And in just going back to my career, I think the one thing that, and I, I heard a, a TED Talk about this actually, and it really resonated with me. It's never say no. If you get offered a project, just always say yes because there's always something you can learn from it. And it just builds your, it builds your portfolio and it builds your knowledge base.

Would you say that mindset or capability you've embraced that about never saying no has made the biggest difference to your career progression that you just talked about it, that you didn't know about Treasury, but right, here's a Treasury job. You went, yes. Okay. What's Treasury? Is that why?

I think openness to learning and you know, you got, there's a certain degree of humility that's required because it can be challenging and you can feel like an idiot. And once you get over it, once you get over yourself, you just buckle down and figure it out and learn it. So I think, yeah, being open.

And if you reflect back over the timeline of your career, you've had all these different experiences and the variety was amazing. Any advice, any looking back and any notes you'd pass yourself to say, yeah, good question.

I've really enjoyed the experiences I've had. I think I would have finished my Chartered Accountant articles, I probably would have been able to move faster having done that.

So we're going to put your LinkedIn details in the show notes and how we wrap up the show every week is advice for the more junior members if they're listening, listeners, more senior staff, some of the takeaways. What advice would you give to people out there? You've given some great nuggets all the way through, but how would you bring it together?

I think treasury, you hear this a lot, but I think it's true. I think treasury is increasingly getting a seat at the table. And I find this often, folks are looking around for an answer to a question or a solution, and it's, oh, where is that? Where does that live? Who knows about it? And, uh, it's in Treasury. So I think increasingly we are being looked at as critical strategic partners. It's definitely true at Stanford. We pride ourselves on, certainly in the capital markets space, We contribute to the strategic health of the institution by keeping our borrowing rates low and ensuring predictability in terms of being able to budget CapEx, CapEx borrowing rates. So I think there's a strategic advantage in a well-run Treasury, and Treasury can be very critical strategic partners to the rest of the institution.

Great final words. I'm going to leave it there. Thank you very much, Karen. It's been lovely to talk to you and Looking forward to meeting you in real life one day soon.

A pleasure. Thanks so much, Mike. Enjoyed talking with you.

Thank you. Thanks.

Bye-bye.

Bye. Before we head off, one quick thing. We just released our latest Treasury Salary Survey. Most people take part for one reason. They want to find out if they're underpaid. Fair enough. That's what it's there for. Now with over 1,700 treasury professionals already in the dataset, spanning right the way across the UK, the US, and Europe. We can give you a pretty accurate, but here's the bit most people don't expect. It's not just about the salary because when you dig into the data, as we do each and every time in our survey, the number one reason people are unhappy in their roles isn't pay. It's lack of progression, not bonus, not benefits, progression in their actual roles. That tells you a lot about where the market really is right now. So if you're listening to this, you're thinking, Am I being paid fairly? What does someone like me earn in the market? What are the averages? What are the ranges? And actually, what's next for me? You can head to treasurysalary.com or go to the Treasury Recruitment website, look for the salary survey, take part. 3 minutes later maximum. If you've done it before, it only takes 30 seconds. But you can benchmark your salary, get a clearer picture of where you stand. The more people who take part, the stronger the data becomes for everyone. In the treasury profession. So fill it in, share it with your team as well. Thanks again for listening. I'll speak to you next week.