[Feature: Can Investment Change Society?] Roundtable Discussion: Thinking About New Money Cycles for Yourself and for Society

The current administration has adopted the catchphrase "from savings to investment," and with the spread of movements like ESG investing, I believe investment is garnering significant attention. Even among Japanese people, who were traditionally said to lack an investment mindset, I think new movements are emerging in how they use money for themselves and for society, including the expansion of crowdfunding and charity.

Therefore, today I would like to take this opportunity to have people from various backgrounds gather and rethink investment in a broad sense for Japanese people, as well as how to use and utilize money.

First, when we talk about investment, we tend to focus on individuals, but corporate investment accounts for a large proportion. I believe investment as a strategic corporate action has also been changing recently. Mr. Urata, as a certified public accountant, what are your thoughts on this?

I work as a certified public accountant at EY Ernst & Young ShinNihon LLC. Since joining in 2007, I have been consistently involved in auditing general business companies. Listed companies prepare documents called financial statements to disclose their business performance based on rules, and you can think of auditing as checking whether those are prepared correctly.

Regarding changes in investment as a strategic corporate action, capital strategy philosophies vary by company, so I will speak here about what I have personally observed.

In 2007, when I joined, it was exactly the time when Takafumi Horie of Livedoor was being celebrated in the media, and triggered by that, venture investment became mainstream and began to increase. Many of the companies I was in charge of were young, and the image was like angel investing, where they would continue to invest in newly established venture companies all the way until they went public.

However, recently, even old-fashioned traditional companies have shown a tendency to engage in this kind of venture-style investing. A characteristic pattern is making small-lot investments in several young companies that seem to have synergies with their own business.

I have the impression that companies taking such investment actions started appearing here and there shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic. I cannot say exactly what the trend is for the market as a whole, but within the scope of my personal observations, I have the impression that a change is gradually emerging in the investment mindset of companies.

On the other hand, I feel that recently, especially among young people, ways of thinking about how to use money have been changing. Ms. Mera, you have been active at the forefront of finance for many years; have you felt a change over the last 10 years or so?

I started READYFOR in 2011 as Japan's first crowdfunding service, and founded the company in 2014, so we are now in our 9th term.

Initially, I didn't have a very good image of entrepreneurs; my sensibility was rather close to that of traditional Japanese people, so I viewed entrepreneurs as money-grubbers I didn't want to get close to (laughs).

When I started the crowdfunding service 10 years ago, such services didn't exist in Japan. At first, people said that Japan has no culture of donation and that the feeling of supporting a project wouldn't emerge here. However, while the US has a 350-trillion-yen donation market, when I studied at Stanford 10 years ago, I realized that it wasn't so much that Japan lacked the culture, but rather that it lacked the mechanisms. There was no sense of tangibility regarding exactly how the money one gave was being used or how it was impacting society.

In contrast, the US puts a lot of effort into such ingenuity. So, I thought there must be many people in Japan who want to feel a tangible flow of money, and I launched the crowdfunding business. We are still halfway there, but even without financial returns, we are moving about 10 billion yen a year, so I feel we have gained more social acceptance than at the start.

I believe it is the literate young people who have supported this. They interact with technology as a matter of course, buy everything on their smartphones, and the fact that the internet has become their main tool has been a major wave over these 10 years.

Furthermore, regarding how they use money, they have a strong desire to empathize with or support things recommended by SNS or people around them. I believe that is why it was accepted by a certain segment of the youth.

However, while recent surveys show that the generation even younger than me, the so-called Gen Z, has a high awareness of social contribution, I sometimes wonder if that is truly the case. I feel it is closer to the sense that, in Japan's difficult situation, young people are thinking about ways to use money that differ from the traditional methods.

Therefore, we are actually thinking about creating mechanisms where the relatively older generation can circulate more money toward the younger generation.

Speaking of the forefront of finance, Mr. Iwata held Japan's first Gala event last December. Could you explain what a Gala event is?

After graduating from university, I joined Dentsu because I wanted to learn marketing and branding. In 2019, when Professor Fujita was launching the Inbound Tourism Research Center within the Institute for Economic Studies, I participated as an advisor to support the launch.

Before COVID, this research center was mainly setting up projects focused on inbound business and mechanisms for wealthy individuals to make donations in Japan, as well as business implementation. While traveling abroad, I learned that the culture of "Gala" is rooted in Europe.

These Gala events date back to the 15th century, where aristocrats would dress up at night and gather in a certain place for social contribution and business networking to make donations. This culture still persists in Europe today.

For example, there are various Galas like the Cannes Film Festival, fashion shows, and UNICEF Galas, but in Japan, there are almost no places where such wealthy individuals gather. I wondered if we could create an event in such a place where a large amount of money is spent at once and has the impact of being returned to society. Then, over three years, in collaboration with the "Global Gift Gala Foundation," we held the first Gala in Asia last December.

It is a glamorous event that brings various Hollywood stars and foundation founders to Japan, but it's not just about partying; there are live auctions and speeches about social contribution, and we raised about 70 million yen for charity in one night.

Since I was given the responsibility for such cultural projects, I hope to continue thinking about how to root the culture of social contribution in Japan.

I am somewhere between the Yutori generation and Gen Z, and I have spent 27 years without ever experiencing a time when the Japanese economy was good. I believe Gen Z individuals, amidst an overflow of information in society, have a fairly strong mindset of wanting to get rich quickly and then thinking about how to give back to society afterward.

While various new things are happening in the world of finance like this, investment involves risk. The Central Council for Financial Services Information is putting effort into financial education and has even created a course called "Financial Literacy" at Keio University.

I joined the Bank of Japan after graduating from university, but I have long experience in monetary policy and financial systems, and it has only been about a year since I became involved in financial education last year.

For this reason, it is presumptuous of me to talk about financial education, but I personally have a part of me that doesn't much like the catchphrase "from savings to investment." Of course, I am not at all denying what the government is currently aiming for, but for example, if deposits, which are a means of household savings, were simply transferred to investment, I wonder if that is truly socially desirable. I feel that the catchphrase "from savings to investment" sometimes lacks a clear logic as to why that would be more desirable.

I think the perspective that "because our country's economic growth potential is declining, we should increase asset income and actively invest to reap the fruits of global growth" is important. However, at the same time, I think a crucial point is whether the people of the world "truly want that."

In that sense, as has been discussed, amidst various values, it would be desirable to change with the idea of providing a wider range of options regarding the flow of money when there is no means to realize them.

In that context, what I first want to convey is "what is financial literacy?" To use a slightly formal expression, I think the general definition of financial literacy is "the ability to make sound decisions about money, which is inseparable from life, and for each individual to realize an independent, secure, and affluent life."

In that sense, knowledge about financial products, investment, and asset formation is of course included, but it is also a broad concept that includes household management, life planning, the basics of consumer life, and responding to financial trouble.

Therefore, if we are to think about "from savings to investment," I believe it is important to firmly create a state where proper knowledge and systems are in place as a prerequisite for making correct judgments based on such correct knowledge and making the judgments the individual desires based on their own values. To that end, I believe it is necessary to strive for the improvement of financial literacy.

Do you feel a generational difference regarding "how to use money" or the level of financial literacy?

We conduct a Financial Literacy Survey at the Central Council for Financial Services Information, and looking at the results, I think there is a general tendency for older people to have higher financial literacy.

There is likely a reason for this. Financial literacy is linked exactly to decisions on how to use money in life. For example, when people experience various life events such as getting married, having a child, or a child going to school, they are inevitably faced with financial decisions, and at that point, the opportunity arises to think about financial issues as their own. I believe they learn actively there, which is why their financial literacy increases.

However, on the other hand, recently, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, financial scams have become more digitized, so seniors with lower digital literacy compared to the younger generation are easily targeted. Even if seniors have financial literacy, problems are emerging where they are deceived due to low digital literacy.

Furthermore, support for seniors who cannot fully enjoy the benefits of financial services due to low digital literacy is also important.

Globally, since the pandemic, there have been discussions that the reinforcement of financial education must address both seniors and the youth through a two-front strategy of digital literacy and financial literacy.

Earlier, in the discussion about corporate investment, there was mention of venture investment. When I entered this world, they were called "venture companies," but now they are being rebranded as "startups," and Japan is currently a lap behind in the wave of supporting startups. Of course, over the last six years or so, the investment amount has grown to about 800 billion yen annually, but looking globally, the investment amount is still small.

In the US, many investors in startups are institutional investors, whereas in Japan, money called CVC (Corporate Venture Capital), where large corporations invest in startups expecting synergies, accounts for a very large proportion.

So, rather than getting short-term profits from startups through investment, I think a characteristic of Japan is that companies view startups as partners to collaborate with in order to grow sustainably. I believe it is a flow of money unique to Japan for large corporations to firmly enter the system and create new innovation while nurturing startups.

Initially, it seemed the world thought venture companies viewed large corporations as enemies, but currently, a key point is rather that large corporations are creating a startup ecosystem together while bringing innovation to society.

I recently launched the Impact Startup Association. There, we organize startups that solve social issues and promote a new methodology called impact investing, which involves investing in companies that produce impact while also expecting pure returns.

Until now, social contribution and solving social issues were done by non-profit organizations or the national and local governments. However, startups as entities that solve problems using technology and innovation are very important, and corporate interest and empathy toward creating a good flow of money for them are very high.

I think individual awareness is progressing, but a recent trend is that an atmosphere is also being created for companies to support such innovation startups from a long-term perspective.

Speaking of solving social issues, so-called Japanese artisans are now aging, and for example, if the heads of Arita ware kilns or sake brewery Toji (master brewers) pass away, hundreds of years of Japanese culture will be cut off. There, startups are emerging that perform so-called new de-branding and product development, have wealthy people buy them, and return that to society.

There are many people in their 20s to early 30s, and I have the impression that a generation is emerging that can consistently think about how to ultimately give back to society rather than just making money, and where they should get the money from for that.

Regarding who they should receive investment from, there are currently very few options, so I hope Japan becomes a society where such opportunities increase. The government has now set a policy to increase the annual investment in startups from the 800-billion-yen scale to a 10-trillion-yen scale by fiscal 2027, so I think it is important to properly follow through on how to implement this.

So investment in startups is progressing. On the other hand, is financial education also being conducted at your firm, Mr. Urata?

Our firm also recognizes financial education as a challenge and it is a field we are putting effort into. I think the background to why Japanese people have been rigid toward investment until now is generally that they do not know much about money or investment. Of course, as mentioned earlier, it is true that financial literacy is higher among older people, but if you ask if those people actively invest, they probably don't. I think there is a potential negative feeling that they might be cheated, or that it's scary or they don't understand it.

Also, it might be a characteristic of Japanese people, but while not quite a taboo, I think there was a consciousness until now that it wasn't good to say various things about money in front of others. However, since knowledge of money is necessary at various stages of life, I feel that financial literacy and financial education are becoming increasingly necessary.

I am a member of the publishing committee at our firm and sometimes plan books with publishers. One publisher asked if we could make something like a picture book about money. In short, they wanted to make a book where even elementary and junior high school students could understand how money works.

When I asked about the background, I was told that "utilization of accounting information" has now been included in the Academic Advisory Board guidelines for junior high and high schools and is to be taught in schools. However, the teachers who teach it do not understand accounting or how money works very well. So, they thought there might be a need for an easy-to-understand how-to book about money.

I have always thought that accounting and auditing are often perceived as difficult and wished there were more simplified books, so I am very happy about this trend. I am convinced there is a latent need to want to know about finance, accounting, and money in simple terms.

Also, I was shocked to recently learn that the Financial Services Agency is releasing how-to videos about how money works targeted at students and the youth. Regarding how money works, there has been a strong tendency until now to prioritize explaining difficult knowledge to people with high knowledge levels, and because of that, I thought there were quite a number of people who want to know basic things but have given up after hitting the wall of the difficulty of accounting and finance.

If such things have been an obstacle to rooting financial literacy, I believe it is also necessary to lower those barriers to entry—that is, the entry level.

I see. Mr. Kamiguchi, is there a tendency for older people to buy stocks?

I don't hear much of that. It might be a matter of preference.

So they don't buy stocks even if they have financial literacy. It might not be a matter of literacy alone.

I think the fastest way to understand finance is to move to the capitalist side.

The reason I think I can understand finance to some extent now is because I run a company. When you look at your own financial situation just like managing a company, you come to understand very well what to invest in, what costs are involved, and how to increase money.

Of course, classroom learning is good, but I think doing many pilot versions of entrepreneurship from an earlier stage is the fastest way. You don't have to register a legal entity; just start some kind of business first. Try to make a profit with that business. Think about how to increase that profit.

Ultimately, things like PL (Profit and Loss statement) and BS (Balance Sheet) are just about how to express that, but I also didn't understand them at all when I was a student, I'm embarrassed to say (laughs). But now that I am managing a business, I can understand them, so I think we need to do more understanding through experience.

I agree. The Japanese Institute of Certified Public Accountants and our firm also plan classes to teach accounting in high schools and junior high schools, and we have them do role-playing, such as managing a shop themselves.

Of course, since it's in a school class, we don't talk excessively about the raw details of money, but we start from how to procure operating capital, what to make and sell to earn income, but since making things costs labor and electricity, how do you track costs? And how do you use the profit after subtracting costs from income, and how do you record and keep track of income and costs? We use such ingenuity to help them root accounting literacy through experience.

To speak about the recent situation surrounding financial education, the age of adulthood has been lowered, the Academic Advisory Board guidelines have been revised, and financial and economic education has been more clearly indicated in the curriculum.

One part of this is in the form of civics, including things like monetary policy, macroeconomic policy, and fiscal policy. And, this is quite surprising, but in home economics, as part of life planning, talk about money from the perspective of asset formation is included. But many home economics teachers do not have much knowledge about so-called finance and economics compared to the fields of cooking and clothing.

Attempts to learn finance through practical examples, as mentioned earlier, are being done by the Financial Services Agency and the Central Council for Financial Services Information, but there are also difficult barriers. First of all, unless you perceive it as your own problem, almost nothing remains in your memory.

Currently, in financial literacy surveys, the ratio of people who have received financial education is around 7%. But my honest impression is: is it really that low? The definition of financial literacy is broad, and it is taught little by little in multiple subjects across elementary, junior high, and high school grades. Since cases where it is taught intensively and comprehensively under the title of "financial education" are very rare, there may be an aspect where it is difficult for students to retain the impression that they "received financial education."

Another frequently discussed argument is that because the culture of investment is not rooted in our country and many people have savings and deposits, that should be changed. However, on the other hand, Japanese people have a strong preference for loss aversion, so there is a possibility that this is a rational choice for households as a result. If that is the judgment of people based on sufficient financial knowledge, then an argument can be made that it doesn't necessarily need to be reviewed.

However, in my recognition, that is not the case. First, people's financial literacy is not necessarily at a high level, and it cannot be said that literacy as a prerequisite for making proper judgments is sufficiently rooted.

Second, regarding the product sales stance of financial institutions, there may have been a sales stance for financial products that was hard to call customer-oriented. This is a common story, but because of that, a sense that investment is "suspicious" has taken root in many people. That is a part that must be corrected institutionally.

Third, although systems like NISA and iDeCo (Individual-type Defined Contribution pension plan) exist, this recent legal revision is the first time NISA has been made permanent, so the institutional framework to realize long-term, diversified, stable, and cumulative investment was not necessarily established in our country.

I personally believe that we should firmly correct the parts of these three points that should be corrected, and then it is desirable for households to choose based on their respective judgments. Even so, depending on household preferences, the results might not change significantly, but I believe that itself is not something that should be particularly problematic.

In that case, it might be asked who will do the investing, but I think we can just consider that the subject of investment is not the household, but rather financial institutions acting as intermediaries or business companies.

Through various connections, I have been conducting financial education at Keio University's affiliated schools, starting with the Girls' High School, then the Senior High School, and then the Chutobu Junior High School. There, I argue that innovation and financial literacy are important, but both junior high and high school students seem to be more interested in financial literacy than innovation.

Some people are given a lump sum of money by their parents with instructions to "buy stocks." So I think things are changing considerably. When I talk about stocks, I was concerned it might be thought of as suspicious, but on the contrary, it seems to have a good reputation. Of course, I also think it's dangerous, so I strongly say, "It's not just about making a profit; the perspective of contributing to the world is essential."

While I think it's very good that more people are becoming knowledgeable about how to use money, I believe there is a structure in a capitalist society where money generates money. So I hope to see an increase in people on the side of receiving investment—exactly the side that creates innovation.

That's true. Also, regarding financial education, it's better to make it as personal as possible, right? Like trying to run a shop or filing a tax return.

I think it's also good to try investing in something, even if it's a small amount. NISA might be one way, but I think the methods for small-lot investment are increasing, so trying it out at a low-risk level feels like a great opportunity to face one's own money.

What kind of flow of money do you think would be desirable for the world in the future? In the past, the flow of funds was such that households saved as much as possible in deposits, and banks lent that to heavy and large industries. I think that was fine back then, but we are no longer in that era, and each individual should bear a certain amount of risk. Also, as we have discussed, the subjects of investment are companies rather than households. So the old flow of "lending surplus household money to companies" is no longer sufficient, is it?

Currently, READYFOR is working on an initiative called bequest donations. To explain what this is, in Japan today, if someone passes away without heirs, the assets they hold are structured to go into the national treasury if there are no relatives.

We are hoping to create a flow of money where such assets can be directed slightly more toward donations. In fact, many of our clients say that if their assets are going to the national treasury, they would rather donate them to the schools or regions that helped them.

However, since the act of donating has not been common in Japan, people often do not know where to donate. About a year and a half ago, we launched a business where our support project team acts as a sort of consultation desk—similar to an insurance agency—to provide advice and facilitate donations to appropriate recipients.

It is said that Japan currently has about 2,000 trillion yen in financial assets in savings, but I believe there is plenty of room to circulate this stagnant personal money toward the future or social activities through triggers and mechanisms. This bequest donation initiative is one such effort, and I feel a great sense of progress.

We also act as financial advisors for wealthy individuals. In the US and Europe, wealthy people have asset management companies and individuals who handle investment, donations, foundation management, money management, and inheritance. While I cannot generalize because the inheritance tax issues in Japan are completely different, I think there are few so-called family offices here.

On the other hand, there are many wealthy people who want to contribute to society or use their money for innovation. Since COVID-19, it seems more people have become conscious that the world needs to change. How do we redistribute money from where it exists? We are currently trying to realize this by building it as a mechanism.

I also didn't initially think that the charity gala held in December would raise tens of millions of yen. I thought it might reach a few million at most. But hands kept going up in the live auction. If people understand where their money will be used, they are willing to provide it. I felt the potential is quite high.

On the other hand, compared to Europe, there are very few situations where social contribution or donation activities become part of one's branding or status in life. In Japan's case, rather than donating flamboyantly, donating silently is seen as a virtue, so I want to work toward a world where social contribution and donation activities become a form of status.

For example, Gen Z is very interested in designing their lives holistically by appearing on YouTube, investing, and contributing to society to fulfill their dreams. I think more people will want to move away from capitalism and take a higher perspective. I want to broaden the base of donation activities.

In terms of donating leading to one's own branding or benefit, I think "Furusato Nozei" (Hometown Tax Donation) is also like that. Since it is eligible for a donation tax deduction, it is personally beneficial. And you receive items equivalent to the amount donated. I think it's a very good system in the sense that it established a mechanism where you benefit from receiving a tax deduction and receiving goods for the amount donated, and I think that is also a type of donation behavior.

Also, I certainly agree with Ms. Mera that it is better to organize the mechanisms. Furusato Nozei can be done easily via an app, and I feel that has significantly lowered the hurdle for donating. If we organize mechanisms and lower hurdles like this, I think a culture of donation will gradually take root among Japanese people.

I can well understand the sentiment that donating secretly is a virtue, but on the other hand, I felt that if we organize a mechanism where people donate because there is some benefit for them and that spreads, a culture of donation will take root.

What parts of society do you think the spread of investment will change?

I tend to speak from a corporate perspective, but I think two things might change.

First, I think it will lead to the diversification of services and the revitalization of the market. Recently, a doctor classmate of mine used crowdfunding to solicit a service that provides baby food with a focus on ingredients and production methods for children, so I participated as well.

Businesses are now being born one after another from such ideas rooted in daily life. I feel that products and services that people wish existed are being created in various places, albeit on a small scale.

If money flows to various individuals and companies starting such small trials, more diverse services will emerge, making individual lives richer. This will lead to service diversification and market revitalization, and ultimately, I think the stock market will become more active.

Second, if investment becomes casual, the way individuals relate to their work will change. Investment in the sense of asset management can be positioned like a side job, and if people no longer have to be tied to their work—essentially, if they don't have to rely solely on one salary—their level of dependence on their job will decrease.

As a result, I think people will conversely be able to choose jobs that fit their lifestyle. I believe this will lead to a positive trend where people can lead diverse lives at an individual level.

Ultimately, I think it would be ideal if people could make investment decisions based on their own values. For some, that might be their life planning; for others, it might be the growth of the country or companies, or social contribution. I believe it is desirable to create an environment where people can properly choose options for self-actualization through such things.

In that sense, we want to strive to spread financial literacy, which is the prerequisite for that. Also, whether it's charity or startup support, I think it's a wonderful initiative to draw out potentially buried values by properly organizing systems that were not necessarily sufficient in our country.

On the other hand, what concerns me regarding investment is talk like, "I've reached middle age in a low-interest-rate environment and am anxious about life after retirement, so I have to do something and try to make a comeback through investment." If that's the case, I think trying to handle it through investment is probably wrong. No matter how much financial literacy you acquire, there is no investment method that is guaranteed to make money, so such "all-or-nothing" strategies may not succeed.

However, regarding investment to reap the fruits of economic growth, it can at least be said that by making time your ally, you can significantly lower the probability of losing. I think the important point is that by properly conveying this to people when they are young, their options will increase.

It is difficult to lead a rich life without properly managing risk. I think this also means that the gap will widen between those with financial literacy and those without, or between those with assets and those without.

In fact, people like Thomas Piketty argue that inequality will expand in the future, and it is said that the gap between the haves and the have-nots widened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Regarding the expansion of inequality that Thomas Piketty mentions, there may be an option to utilize investment effectively while using things like nudges. However, I believe that essentially, the issue of inequality is a problem of so-called redistribution and a typical case of market failure, so it is fundamentally an area where the government should intervene. I think the standard approach is to appropriately adopt redistribution policies as a social choice.

I'd like to ask about that. I honestly don't know if redistribution through policies where the state intervenes can really be realized in modern society.

I believe the discussion of whether the state should do something as a policy and the discussion of how to realize it under a parliamentary democracy should ideally be separated. If there is a market failure in a purely economic world and there are actual grounds for intervening, I think the discussion of redistribution is fundamentally an area the government should handle.

On the other hand, the people actually choosing policies are those elected within a parliamentary democracy. In such a process, as with "from savings to investment," if we skip the discussion of why we aim for that as a policy, I think the axis of evaluation will waver.

Arguments like "People are struggling because of low interest rates. There is also anxiety about future pensions, so let's increase money through investment to make ends meet" could lead to debates like "Is that true?" depending on the timeframe. In that sense, I think we need to think through the logic properly.

In conventional economics, it was assumed that individuals act only with themselves in mind, so it was thought that inequality would not be corrected if left to market mechanisms, and therefore a role for the government was necessary.

However, it has recently been said that the assumption that individuals only think of themselves is not necessarily correct. If we rebuild economics once more on that premise, it is conceivable that inequality could also be solved by market mechanisms. It seems that inequality can be properly corrected by companies, and I am thinking of creating a theoretical model to analyze this.

Also, since companies are closer to information than the government, I feel there might be fewer failures if entities close to information—namely, companies—act according to their own thoughts. I also feel that if the essence of the problem becomes visible while doing that, changing the system at that stage will cause a sudden, complete shift. So I feel that now is the phase where companies should work hard and be active.

Regarding the way of working that Ms. Urata pointed out, in the past, men often went to the workplace to work, while women stayed at home and put money into savings without doing much stock investment. But from now on, I think we are in an era where money works together with us, just like a job.

For example, what is the desirable ratio of labor income and asset income within household income? What do you think about considering something like a work-life-money balance?

Nowadays, for example, I can't realistically imagine working for one company for decades, and I think there are quite a few people in the younger generation who think about how to earn in order to invest. Currently, salaries for the younger generation really aren't increasing. In a situation where a new graduate's take-home pay is around 200,000 yen, I think there is an increasing movement to learn this way of earning specifically for the purpose of investing.

For example, finishing at 5:00 while working from home, working as an engineer for three hours, and putting that money into investment to change one's life design.

Is the job turnover rate high among young people now?

I think the number of people considering changing jobs or having side jobs is becoming quite large. Many of my peers have already changed jobs, and I feel there is a polarization between those in their 20s and 30s who earn as much as they can at foreign-affiliated companies to get high compensation, and those with the so-called Showa-style way of working.

Having spent 30 years in Japan where the economy hasn't been good, there's an anxiety about whether we can even live until 70. Like, Japan won't grow at all and everyone will run out of money by around age 40.

In thinking about what one wants to do, I think a mechanism to firmly provide the prerequisite information is necessary.

Also, for our country to grow economically and not be left behind, it is very important to encourage revolutionary innovation that increases productivity. At the same time, I think it is also an important point that the way to increase the productivity of the country as a whole is not only through the development of revolutionary technology.

In fact, the productivity of the country as a whole also increases when resource allocation, such as people and capital, shifts from low-productivity sectors to high-productivity sectors. And that mechanism is something that occurs daily within the market's price competition mechanism. For that reason, there are aspects that are easier to address than continuously generating revolutionary innovation that creates something from nothing.

On the other hand, market mechanisms do not have a very good reputation in our country. Rather, since Japan is in a sense a very kind society, measures that suppress such forces are not infrequently taken. As a society, it is naturally fine to choose such responses.

However, I feel it is more desirable to make that judgment while also understanding that such choices will consequently affect the growth potential of the country as a whole. For this reason, I think it is important to aim for a mechanism where decisions can be made with an understanding of these factors.

The other day, I had a panel discussion at the Asahi Education Conference with President Itoh and other professors, and I re-read Yukichi Fukuzawa's books in preparation for it. There was a discussion that Yukichi Fukuzawa held the concept of the elite (leaders), and that people who graduate from Keio University are those who take an interest in the world and contribute firmly to the world through their lives—and that is what an elite is.

Because of the harsh environment, there are many people in this country who are struggling just to survive today. That is precisely why people in positions where information gathers must act proactively.

I believe Yukichi Fukuzawa conveyed that Keio University is a place that nurtures people who can sincerely think about "what is good for the world," so I myself want to continue my self-improvement to become a person who can contribute to society, even in a small way.

That's right. Yukichi Fukuzawa was indeed great, and his teachings live on today.

In this roundtable discussion, having heard from people active in various fields and being able to take a bird's-eye view of the past and present, I feel we can look forward to a good future. My understanding of the phrase "from savings to investment" has also deepened, and I have learned a lot.

Thank you very much for today.