Well, it's a long career path at this point because I'm kind of old, but I'll condense it. I graduated from Law School and started as a lawyer at a firm that specialized in financial institutions law and developed a specialization along those lines myself. That hadn't originally been necessarily my intention, to develop that specialization, but it was where I was working, and as a result in the early, the late eighties during the savings and loan crisis, when the Treasury was looking to put together a team to deal with changes in financial regulation that were needed then, they reached out to the main New York law firms for young experts in financial institutions law, and they ended up each of those firms gave a nominee, they ended up choosing me to be on that team, and that gave me experience, at the Treasury experience of the public sector. That was during the first Bush administration Bush 41. I went back to the law firm, his partner came back, but once you've had an experience like that, once you have done a job like that, you sort of getting on a list for future administrations, future possible positions, in the Bush 43 administration, they brought me back to the treasury because of that experience, and that, also that experience then led to my leaving the treasury and not going back to the law but becoming a private equity investor and then again, when there was a need in the Trump administration for someone with expertise in the financial system from a number of different areas to serve at the Fed, they asked me to serve, and that's why I am here. So it was, it was a combination of, some accidents of history as to where I began my career and what I began focusing on because of where I was, and then, long periods of being willing to accept different experiences to move to different career paths in order to expand that experience.

I guess there are three, main responsibilities, in this role. The first is with regard to the sort of regulation and supervision of the financial system, particularly the banking system. The Fed directly regulates the number of bank subsidiaries, but our principal rule is as the regulator of all the countries bank holding companies, so the financial institutions that, not just banks, but a variety of other subsidiaries and this post was established by Dodd-Frank, to be the first point of developing policy and overseeing supervision for all of those firms. Secondarily, as a member of the Board of Governors of the Fed, I participate in all of the monetary policy decisions of the Federal Open Market Committee, which is a group that's composed not just of the board of the Fed, but a rotating group of the presidents of each of the Federal Reserve banks around the country on and, those are the decisions of that committee are those you see, explained by the chairman every six weeks in his public press conferences and testimony, and the final main, role that I have currently is as the chair of an international body called the Financial Stability Board, which is not just banking regulation but also nonbank financial regulation that brings together central bank governors and market regulators from jurisdictions around the world to consider what the framework of international regulation to keep it.

So, I would say, well, there's a lot of substantive complexity, and technical detail that's required in each of those areas, that I participate in, the biggest challenge, really is that all of them require joint decision making. The board of Governors has seven members. The FOMC has 19 potential participants and 12 voting members at any particular time that the board is fully staff. The FSB is a group of almost 70 representatives of various international bodies that operate by consensus. So in each of these rolls, it's not enough to come to a view as to what you think is the right thing to do. You have to be able to persuade a variety of others of that view and that takes, that could take time. It takes a great deal of patience. It takes a certain approach to deal with colleagues. I would say probably the principal technique that I have used and people have different techniques as to how to handle those sorts of situations. Some people just barrel forward and by the sort of sheer force of energy, try to steamroll, the colleagues that they're used, the ascent they need, and that can work for a while. That could work for a material period of time. My approach has always been, another approach is simply, conflict avoidance, Right? So there, in all of those situations, with that many people participating, you're going to have differences of views, sometimes strong differences of view, and some people choose to preside over a situation without really engaging in those differences of view. My approach has always been, neither of those two extremes, but rather to kind of direct approach the points of difference and overcome the tension that there could be by demonstrating goodwill to people even who have extremely different points of view from yours.