How to Develop a Successful Treasury Department with Nick Taylor

So, welcome to this week's Treasury Career Podcast, where I interview treasury professionals about their treasury careers. I'm having a great time talking to treasurers globally about their roles, how they built their careers, where they are now, where they see themselves and the treasury profession going next. In this week's show, I'm delighted to be joined by a very good friend of mine, Nick Taylor, the head of Group Capital and Treasury at schroders. Founded in 1804, Schroeders plc are a British multinational asset management group. The company employs over 4700 people in 30 different countries across Europe, America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Right the way across. Headquartered in London, they're listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 index. Schroder is a public company, but the Schroeder family, through trustee companies, individual ownership and charities, still control nearly 48% of the company's ordinary shares. So they have a very strong interest in the group to this day. I wanted to talk to Nick today about his career within treasury and with all our guests, I'd like to discuss how they got to where they are in terms of their treasury career, discuss their present role and talk about where they see the future of treasury and the future of our guests themselves. Given my recruitment background, I also talk about treasury talent and the recruitment ethos of Schroders and when they recruit. And, Nick, looking back at your background, you actually decided finance was an early career choice for you, way back when, when you started, I think, post A level, is that right, or over to you?

Yeah. Hi, Mike. That's right. So I left school with appalling A level grades and that gave me a bit of a wake up call. So I had to decide what I wanted to do. And I didn't want to go to university, which in some ways I regret, but at the time I didn't. And so I had to work out what it was I was going to do. And I thought I wanted to go into business of some kind. And I figured out that accountancy was a language of business. So I decided to go to college and study ACCA full time for three years. And, well, there are elements of accountancy which are a little bit dry, shall we say. And the area that was keeping me interested in the final year was back then called financial management. And I did a bit of digging around into that and the closest thing I could find was Treasury. So that's how I came across Treasury. I decided to go straight on before working to do the Act Exams. So from three years of accountancy, I then went and did a full year of act, which was correspondence course. So it was sitting at home learning and that's how it all started.

That was whilst working as well. So you did it distance learning?

Well, no, I actually wasn't working really. So it was a predominantly correspondence course with some weekend events, some weekend tuition, and at the first weekend tuition, I spoke to the chap who was chairing the day, who was a treasurer himself of a private bank, and I explained what I was doing and I explained that treasury is a very practical subject. So I was a little bit concerned that I was sitting at home reading textbooks on it. And he said, well, why don't you come and work for me for a day or two a week? So I was. I ended up getting a little bit of part time experience in the treasury function of a private bank. But, you know, most, most of the time it was. I started off with my head in treasury books.

Right. And then. And then from there you finished your exams and do you start looking around or did jobs come knocking?

I did. No, no, I did start looking around and I guess one of the things that's changed a lot in the last 25 years or so is the way jobs are advertised. So I actually saw an advert in the Financial Times for a cash analyst for what was Owners Abroad, which went on to become first Choice holidays, and I somehow managed to get the job, which was, you know, not that easy because they were looking for someone with three years experience. But I did, you know, one of the lessons I learned was that preparation pays off. So I did an immense amount of preparation for the interview and had done a kind of mini, I suppose, financial analysis myself of the company and went to the interview and was able to talk about what I thought were the risks that the company was facing and I was lucky enough for someone to give me a break. So I got into Owners Abroad as a cash analyst within the Tour operating division and after being there for a year or two, I was able to move into the Group treasury function. So it was a. It was from cash analyst to treasury analyst is how I started.

Then after two years there, you then made another move. What brought that on, off?

I did. I had a great time at Owners Abroad, but from a Treasury perspective, I was young and had learned a lot and there wasn't anywhere for me to go for the foreseeable future. And I was, I suppose, encouraged or by the pound signs to go and work in the City for a bank bankers trust and I worked in their futures subsidiary as what was called the assistant treasurer, but it was really focused on day to day cash operations and it was interesting to see the inside of a bank. But back then for me I found the culture didn't suit me. And also it was treasury, you know, in a futures broker. So it was, it was pretty limited and not as broad as I was wanting. So I had a bit of a shock, I suppose. And it was probably when I look back on the things, the career I've had and the places I've been, for me that was probably, that was probably the mistake because culturally it didn't fit me. So I stayed there for about 18 months and then moved from there to Tenacoa, which was a US conglomerate which had its international treasury center in London. And so I was there for a number of years looking after the international treasury operations of that company.

And Teleco, they were logistics?

No, weren't logistics, they were shipbuilding, energy, packaging and car parts.

Right.

So shock absorbers and exhaust. So really quite diversified.

And then you did that role, but then you came back to it or whatever took me through that period.

I did, yeah. My CV in some ways looks a bit odd. So Tenneco, being an American company at the head office, at one point did a review of where the treasury activity was taking place and times got a little bit tough and they decided that they needed to shut the London office in order to save costs. And, you know, we all saw this coming. So I began to look for a different role and was offered the role of deputy treasurer at United News and Media, which was a FTSE 100 media group at the time. So I was getting prepared to leave to go there and then Tenneco did their analysis to work out where they were going to relocate the treasury activity that was taking place in London because it had to be done somewhere, but they wanted to move it somewhere to cut costs. And after the analysis was done, the answer they came up with was London. So they offered us all our jobs back. But I had, I'd already been offered a role at United News and Media. So I went off to do that for probably three years, I think, and that got me to the end of 1999 and I just decided that I wanted to take a year out. I'd always had an interest in money, which I guess is a good thing for a treasurer, but I'd always wanted to get to a point where I could, I could manage my own money and really invest my own money. So I took a year out to sit at home and develop a trading and investment strategy, which was reasonably successful but quite lonely. And I got to the end, the end of the first year of doing that, and the treasurer for Tenneco in London rang me up and said she was going on maternity leave, would there be any chance I could come back and cover? And it just happened to coincide with a time when I was pretty lonely at home. And I thought, actually, I've developed this trading and investment strategy. I can actually do both, so I can develop my treasury career and just like we all do, think about where my pension allocations are going to go using my own strategy. So I went back to Temeco to cover for the maternity leave and then Tenneco decided properly that they really were going to shut the London office and outsource the treasury activity. So that's what got me back to 10. Okay. And then from there I went to Excel, which was a FTSE 100 logistics firm. I went there as assistant treasurer, became deputy treasurer and then eventually group treasurer. And Excel then was taken over by Deutsche Post. Deutsche Post owns dhl.

Yep.

So Deutsche Post bought Excel to swallow it up into dhl. So it was then time to find somewhere else. And I was speaking to a friend of mine who I had worked with. He was a banker at JP Morgan and he had actually become the treasurer of United News and Media for the last six months or so when I was there. So had been a banker that I knew, then a boss and then a friend. And when I was looking for a role after Excel, he said, I need to go and talk to my friend David Brown at Man Group. Man Group back then was a hedge fund manager and a futures broker. He said, go and have a chat to David. So I went along and had to chat to David, not knowing what I was going to be, you know, what the purpose of the chat was, other than, hello, David, I'm a friend of Tim Colliers and he suggests I come and talk to you. And I've been very, very lucky. My timing couldn't have been better because Man Group's Group treasury function at the time sat with within one of their divisions, the brokerage business, and they were preparing to float that business on the New York Stock Exchange and obviously realize that if they float the division, the Group treasury function is going to go with it. So they needed to create a new treasury function within the hedge fund business. Yeah, from scratch and from scratch. And I was fortunate enough to be given that role. So I started in September 2006 on my own blank sheet of plaid paper, no systems, no processes, no people, and then told to build a Treasury function.

Just before that, as you'd explained there, Tim had an ex banker, had gone into the corporate side and then you were making the reverse move and you know, were there, you know, what were your concerns or you know, you've been corporate treasury all the way through and now the move to sort of banking asset management, you know, sort of the switch across, how did you find that or what were your concerns at that stage?

I didn't have any concerns, but that was possibly because of naivety. I mean, what I found is doing treasury in a financial services business, there's an extra dimension and the extra dimension is regulation. And in the financial services sector with regulation comes a regulatory capital requirement and a regulatory liquidity requirement. So, you know, whereas in non financial services corporates, you're looking at an optimal capital structure and looking to get the equity and debt mix right and all of that stuff within the financial services sector, you also having to make sure that your capital composition and the amount of capital you're holding is meeting the regulatory requirements and also having to do the same on the liquidity side as well, it just adds an extra dimension.

Well, those requirements have changed drastically since you started with mangrove back in 06 when you were there.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, very, very much so. I mean, you know, as you would expect, the, the requirements have got more onerous and more detailed. So. Absolutely, yeah.

So blank sheets of paper. Greenfield, as it were, for Man Group, you, you had to build a Treasury. How did he go about it? The listeners, as it were. So if any of those guys are walking in. Right, here you go, here's the blank sheet of paper they can go. Right, there you go. Here's the Nick Taylor plan. Let's do this.

The priority was, I suppose, daily cash operations and daily liquidity management. So rather than capital structure, which was really a given because the Man Group was already listed on the stock exchange and I was going to be inheriting the capital structure post the flotation of the brokerage business, the focus really was, well, how are we going to manage the group's liquidity on a daily basis? So we had to. Well, I had to select a system and then slowly build a small team. So I actually built the team internally from within Man. So my priority wasn't necessarily to have anyone with treasury experience, it was more to find people within the company who understood the company and had the right attitude.

Yeah. And knew how it worked internally.

Absolutely. And having said experience wasn't A priority. What's quite fortunate inside a financial services firm is there's there are other areas within the business that also do activity which some people would think of as, you know, or describe as treasury activity. So there are other functions managing the fund's cash rather than the firm's cash. So one of the places I was able to recruit from internally was from product operations where there was a team of people on a daily basis managing the fund's cash. So they had the basics and they knew something about the firm. So that's how it all started. So the focus was managing the group's cash on a daily basis. Once that was under control and I said, I started at man Group in September 2006. We went live with the new treasury function on the 1st of July 2007. So it was a really pretty quick, you know, building the basics was really quite quick.

Yeah.

And once, once that was up and running, the focus then became on optimizing the group to capital structure. So we had, we had the day to day processes working and then it was, well, how do we optimize this group's capital structure and get the right mix of equity and debt and regulatory capital, qualifying debt. And of course in 2007 there weren't that many people, if any people aware that there was a financial crisis about to come. So we were in growth mode and we were putting in place a capital structure to see the group through a period of growth and then along came the financial crisis. So having put this great capital structure in place, then the world became a bit tough, particularly in the financial markets. So then it was a case of actually now we've got to batten down the hatches and we've actually got to find a way to cut costs. So then we ended up doing the reverse, which is unwinding a large part of the capital structure in order to take out interest expense because we were no longer in, or temporarily no longer in growth mode.

Yeah, it was coping mode sort of thing.

Yeah.

Wow. So you got through that and then how did you continue to develop treasury from there or how did it change for you?

It became, I suppose it was about making the day to day function as efficient as possible with a focus on costs. We went from being a team of seven down to a team of four. So it was about, you know, becoming as efficient as possible, cutting costs and for me personally it was all, it was all working very, very well. But, you know, I had obviously been doing treasury for quite a few years and had decided that, you know, I was Very happy with a career in treasury, wasn't actively pursuing or trying to pursue a move from treasury to, you know, a divisional CFO or a company CFO role. Very happy to be a Treasury specialist. And so I felt that I'd, you know, got as far as I could where I was and so began to think about moving on.

And then Schroeders came along and what was it? What was the pull factor for that role versus continuing at man, as you say? There was probably. It sounds like there was a natural time to look, but what was the pull factors in particular about Schroders?

A number of things. First of all, still in the financial services sector, still an asset manager, a large, very well established, very well respected asset manager. And so the name was obviously known to me. So when I heard about it, I thought, well, you know, in terms of UK listed asset managers, if not European listed asset managers, this is the best. This sounds very interesting. But the real pull, other than the sector and the firm itself, was that the, the opportunity there was to, I suppose, help improve a function that wasn't working as well as it could have been.

Right. How was it structured before when you walked to the door, what was the.

Well, I mean, there was, there was a function there, there was a system there and there was a process or there were processes there, but, but not, you know, not, not really fit for purpose.

Yeah.

Or not. Not fit for purpose at that point in the firm's evolution.

Yeah. Growth in the future and setting up because you've been through with man. So sound, you know, do it again. Something.

Yeah, yeah. So, you know, I knew, I knew, I knew what good looked like. So I knew, you know, having spent a little bit of time at Schroeders, it was quite clear to me quite quickly what needed to be done. You know, nothing. No rocket science. Reasonably straightforward in that we needed to simplify and enhance our processes once again, put in a new system which sounds perhaps, maybe extravagant, but it wasn't. We went for something which was absolutely fit for purpose, but not over engineered and not over specced and really just as simple as creating some direction and purpose and clearly stating what the function of the treasury function within Schroders is all about, because, you know that they can vary from firm to firm. We all know what treasury does, but it can be a little bit different in different firms.

And what's your definition of, you know, a successful treasury in Schroders, then? You know, as you say, different over here, but, you know, what's your, you know, you have it on the wall. This is what we do or this is who we are. What would you say that is in your head?

Well, the biggest difference is, up until joining Schroder's treasury, for me, was the textbook definition of having the right amount of funds in the right currency, in the right place at the right time. But in other firms I've worked at, the capital structure has involved debt or some debt in order to try and get the equity to debt mix right, for efficiency purposes. Schroeders is different. We don't have any debt, and that's, you know, that's by design. And instead what we have is a large pool of assets. So from a treasurer, I went from managing liabilities and debt to managing assets. And, you know, that's quite. That's quite refreshing. It's not totally unusual. There are other firms out there that have big investment portfolios. But from a Treasury perspective, it's been very interesting to switch from one side of the balance sheet to the other and think about how we optimize our investment portfolio and think about what it's there for. In Schroder's case, it's surplus capital that has been built up over the years from profits and also selling the investment bank some time ago, and it's there for future investment in the business. So it has to be, you know, it has to be available when it's needed for either organic growth or inorganic growth. But it's just a, you know, I suppose it's. Well, it's the other side of the balance sheet. And it's just quite interesting, a change to switch from focusing on the liability side to the asset side.

And I mentioned the start of the show. The Schroeder family still have very much an active interest control, nearly 48% of group shares through the trustee companies and everything else. It sounds like that makes a difference as well. I know we've discussed it before. How does that, you know, affect things within treasury or, you know, what ethos does that give you back as a firm?

Well, Schroeder's, as you said at the beginning, Mike, has been around for, you know, it's been around for over 200 years.

Yeah.

And the focus. The focus. The focus is making sure that we're around for the next 200 years.

Right.

So it's, you know, there are. The focus. I know we all say this, but the focus really is on the long term rather than short term. And, you know, when a firm has got that length of history and was started by a family who are still A large minority shareholder that creates stability and very much a long term focus.

With yourself. You and I have talked about the fact that there's individual accountability or a black book, as it were. Without giving too much away, talk to me about how that relationship has worked. We've discussed it before and I think as long as it's public information, that is. But how are you held accountable as a treasurer, which I think is quite different to many of my other clients within Treasury.

Yeah, I mean, that's a very good point. Although my treasury function is not a profit center. Yeah. The culture is such that I am encouraged. Well, not, not just encouraged, asked. I have been asked to record and keep, keep a record of things that we do as a function that either save money or, you know, enhance returns. So enhanced returns might sound like we're, you know, we're chasing yield and we're risky. It's not about that at all. It's just, I suppose, encouraging us to stop and think about what we're doing and what is the impact on costs and what is the impact on revenue and actually making sure we, you know, we write that down.

And get the best value.

Yeah, and get, and get the best value. I mean, the question, an expression that is quite common in traders is what would you do if it was your own money? Right. So, you know, you need to think whenever we're doing anything, if this was our own money, what would we do? And that, that really helps, you know, clarify thinking, actually. And it's, and it's really quite interesting when you have to sit down and record the things that the function has done to either save money or create, you know, income. It's really quite a useful exercise and it can be quite surprising what some of the results are. So, you know, we will have objectives and we all, you know, sit down halfway through the year or at the end of the year and review our objectives and work out whether we've met them or not, or exceeded them. But actually when you actually need to quantify the impact that you've had as a function, it's quite motivating.

Yes. And when you do that, you say, is that group team wide? Rather, you know, do you do each of the, do you do this with your team or is it group values? How do you work?

I was asked to do it, you know, by one of our senior, one of our, one of our directors, but I've been doing it. I don't know whether other areas do it, but that's how it came about for me. And you know, I'M doing it for the function, but I'm the one that presents it. But present it on behalf of the function.

But you do with the team. You know, how many are in the actual treasury team with yourself?

There are five of us in total. So it's. I would say for what we. I would say for what we do, but I would say this, wouldn't I? It's quite. It's a small team for the activity that we're doing.

And, you know, leading that team, you know, you know, without the usual words about a great boss and blah, blah, blah, you know, how do you know what's your ethos about mentoring those guys or, you know, acting as a, you know, experienced treasury guy. So you're going to know what you're doing, but how do you do it? What's your ethos?

How do I do it? Well, I don't think this is necessarily particularly unusual, but I think what's important is to have a clear sense of direction and purpose, so defining what it is that this particular treasury function is here to do, so that everyone in the team knows the direction we're going in. So what we're doing needs to be aligned to what the firm is doing. So we can look at what the firm's strategic objectives are and then we can define what it is we need to do to help contribute towards those. That gives you the overall direction. I think the other thing that's important is some clear annual objectives in order that we will maintain focus. And then the other thing I think is adjusting one's management or leadership style for the people you're working with. Because we're all different, aren't we? And some people like to be left alone to get on with things, but like to know that if they need some help, you know, you're there. And other people like more interaction, more regular feedback. So I think it's about, you know, being alert to what different people require and how they work, work best. What management style suits them best? No, I don't think one, you know, I don't think applying one management style to everyone, it get, you know, help helps people perform their best.

So you've got quite diverse. I think you've got different levels of seniority within, within the team. Is that right?

Yeah. So we have an assistant treasurer who has been at Schroeder's for over 15 years, heading towards 20. We've got. And then we've got four treasury analysts. Sorry, not four treasury analysts, three treasury analysts. Two are focused on day to day cash operations and One is. One does what their title says, really does the analysis.

Yeah.

So we have to. We have to report to our internal capital committee every month on. On the world of treasury, really. And, you know, where is the group's cash? What are we doing with it? And probably the biggest focus, actually, is the group's investment portfolio. What's it invested in? How's it performing? So we have one treasury analyst who, amongst other things, but their main responsibility is to produce the report that goes to the capital committee every month. That report started off as a blank sheet of paper and is now not. The quantity is necessarily everything, but is now about 38 pages to show the committee what we're doing. What does our regulatory capital position look like, what does our liquidity look like, where's our cash and where are the investments and how they're performing? And there's something in that report, not just the content but the structure, that changes every single month. And that's because we need to, as a Treasury function, we need to adjust to what's going on in the business and the business is constantly changing and we're changing with it.

Looking at those team members, I mean, now, a full disclosure. Obviously, you're on a podcast hosted by the treasury recruitment company, and I was going to say, when you're recruiting, what. What do you look for? We have recently recruited for yourselves, so I think hopefully we've got it. But, you know, when you are recruiting, what are you looking for in terms of, you know, personality, ethos or what's. What's the key thing for you that, you know, is it, oh, wow, this CVs got this, this, this. Obviously you've got diverse background yourself or what are the. What gets someone straight onto the yes pile versus the babies versus maybe we'll look at them or possibly not. So they. Those three.

Well, you, I mean, you know, working, working with you, Mike, you. Obviously, you offer us a, you know, a few CVs which have been filtered. So the first thing is to have filtered CVs, but then it's, you know, then it's the. What does the CV look like? So what is the experience? Let's not have a CV with any spelling mistakes in it.

Oh, no.

But the most important, most important thing me was you can't always get off a cv, which is why it's, you know, it's important that we have your input into the process, because you've met the people and you're recommending them and if you've met them, you know what they're like. But the most important thing when we actually get to meet the people is the attitude. For me, it's not so much the experience, it's not so much the qualifications, it's the attitude and the keenness to, you know, to contribute and make a difference and, you know, an interest in the business. One of the things that really staggers me is the number of people over the years that I've interviewed. And one of. One of my first questions in an interview would be, tell me what you know about Schroders or whichever company it is. Yeah, but tell me what you know about Schroeders. And. And if people tell you a lot, I stop and think, well, why on earth would you want to come to work for a company don't really know much about? Yeah, so it's a. So for me, it's, it's, you know, to go back to your question, it's, it's the attitude. Is there. Is there an attitude to do the best? Is there a willingness to do the best?

So you mentioned about CVs. There just going back a stage. You've got a bit of a bugbear, as I recall, on CVs about systems. Would that be right? Or some things I remember you saying before.

I say about myself, Mike, if I had the time, I'd have ocd. I am a bit of a one for presentation and attention to detail.

Yeah.

So, yeah, I do a lot of attention to CVs.

And I remember you saying, I think when it said about IT systems, if it says Microsoft Word on there, I think that's something that you said that frustrates you. Should we say.

Yeah, because I think, I mean, that's just having a cv, isn't it? We all know how to. Even if it's the very basic level, we will know how to use Microsoft Word. So I might be sounding a little bit harsh here. Obviously, if the person has very little experience and the CV needs to be filled up a little bit, I am understanding. But if it's someone with lots of experience and there are systems listed on there that are just padding, it's a bit of a warning sign to me.

And I think that's something we've talked about. You and I, we talked about clarity of communication. That's one of the things that came through in last week's podcast with Sarah Jane hall from gsk. And they actually, when they're doing an interview, they actually have their communication test. They actually do. They do a sort of mini case study. And she. I was like, oh, wow. How come? She said, because communication within treasury is key, you know, and that's an underestimated factor. Oh, it's all about the numbers. Oh, it's all about this. And actually she said it's not, it's about then explaining what that means. So.

Yes, absolutely.

Okay. So looking back over your, sort of your career, you know, any standout moments for you, you know, what's been the greatest challenge you sort of looked at and thought, this is what I need to get over or develop?

Well, I mean, I think the two. I've got two standouts for me. One is the current rolls rotors because of, you know, it involved helping a Treasury function which wasn't work, wasn't working as well as it should have been. So turning something around was great. And then before that, the previous role of mangroup, where we built something from nothing. I think it's really satisfying to either build something or fix something. It's obviously great, once you've done that, to keep it running as well as it can possibly run. But having the challenge of creating something from nothing or fixing something has been particularly satisfying.

And if someone wants a career like yourself, or in a similar way, what's the advice you're going to give them, whether they're early stages or mid stages of their career? And they say, actually looking at the experiment, that sounds like something I'd like to pursue. What would you say again, looking back, Sarah Jane at gsk, one of the key things for her that stood out for her was qualifications. And she's, you know, she wasn't hung up on any particular one. She was like, you know, just do them, you know, just get in there, get stuck in and everything else. But, you know, if you look at it yourself, what, you know, if you. Again, if you want someone, someone looks at how that's the way I want to follow, what would you, what advice would you give those guys?

Well, I mean, I'm repeating myself a little bit, but the first, the first thing is. No, no, no, I apologize. The first thing is the, the positive attitude. But I totally agree with what you and Sarah Jane have said. If you start with the right attitude, then the desire to develop should come with that. And I think it really stands out when someone has made the effort to invest in themselves through qualifications. And in fact, I was talking to someone we've got working with us at the moment on a temporary basis who's recently graduated from university, and we were having exactly this conversation about how important it is to, you know, to continue to get the qualifications and think about which qualifications are relevant to what you want to do. So I totally agree with that.

Okay, brilliant. Anything else you think we haven't covered? You know, there's obviously, you know, lots of other challenges coming up. Treasurers, you know, you've got Brexit, you got. All treasures are going to be replaced by robots. We hear all the IT things, automation, you go to every conference known to man, as we have and all that stuff. Anything else you're thinking about? Where do you go as Nick Taylor, where does the Schroder's function go from here?

Well, I think with any. Let's start with the Schroder's treasury function, but it can be applied to any treasury function. I think the world is a rapidly changing place and it seems that the pace of change seems to be getting faster and for treasury, that means moving with the change that's happening in the business. So when I've been running a Treasury function for a bit, and I'm happy that the way that particular function is running and it comes to the end of the year and we're beginning to think about what are we going to do next year? There have been quite a few years when I thought, you know what, I'm actually not sure what we're going to do next year because Touchwood, the processes are working, the people are working, the systems are working, it's all running very smoothly. But there's always something that comes along to the causes the treasury function to have to move with the way the business is moving. So it's not always easy to predict what that change is going to be, but there is always something. So I can't at the moment, I can't. You know, I can tell you, in the case of Schroders, the business continues to be to diversify more and move into different asset classes. So for us, there's an expectation of growing our private assets business and that will have implications for treasury and it is already. So I think the overall answer is things constantly change. Doesn't have to be technology that's causing the change. The underlying business change changes because the world is changing and we have to adapt to that. I can't see that we'll all be replaced by robots. I think there are, you know, there are thankfully, there are obviously processes that can be performed by robots, but strategy and adapting to how the business is changing at the moment at least seems difficult to get a robot to do.

Yeah, well, we talked about this. You know, I talked about this with yourself and Sarah Jane as well. That you know, a number of other treasurers that, you know, open skills and open ended stuff, that's what we as people do and cope with. It just means that the closing stuff, the roach learning, the turn of the handle, yeah, you can automate that. But actually treasury by its very nature is the future, is unpredictable, is, you know, everything else that, you know, gets thrown at treasurers every day. You know, people have said, well, exactly.

Exactly. I think, you know, you hit the nail on the head there, Mike, with, with Treasury. One of the differences is treasury is about now and the future. It's much, much less about looking back and recording what happened in the past. We obviously need to do that. We need to have good records and we need to know what we did in the past and we need to learn from the past. But it's more about what are we doing today and what's coming at us and, you know, what are we going to be doing in the future. That seems at this stage at least, quite difficult to imagine that a robot is going to be able to think strategically into the future and ask questions and then react to the answers to those questions.

Nick, that was fantastic. Thanks very much for your time today. Obviously, you know, number of people might want to reach out to yourself. Are they okay to, you know, potentially if they're, they're interested in treasury, you know, look at you on LinkedIn, you see Nick's very successful career. Feel free to connect with us, if that's all right with you. You still active?

Yeah, of course, yeah, still, still active on LinkedIn. And yeah, please, anyone that wants to, please do get in touch.

Brilliant. Stefan, thanks for your time today.

Pleasure. Thanks, Mike.