Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Switzer -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) This program is live captioned by Ericsson Access Services.

Hello, I'm Peter Switzer. Welcome to the program, which puts you in touch with the best and brightest minds in the business. Tonight - CMC's Michael McCarthy will look at today's trade and we'll see if it's time to start believing in big cap companies again. We'll meet the CEO of Nick Scali, Anthony Scali. John Ger introduces us to a new company targeting corporate wrong doers. Who needs royal commissions? We'll look at the 100 women of influence in Australia with Westpac's Ainslie van Onselen. Stay with us for the next hour. We'll bring you the latest corporate news and market analysis, plus learn valuable lessons from Australian success stories. If you have questions for me or my guests. Email them at switzer.com.au. You can follow me on Twitter. Now, it was a good day on the market today and I guess we can thank our good friends at OPEC, but was there anything else there that took the market up so strongly? Given what we're seeing, is it time to give big cap companies another chance? Michael McCarthy is, of course, the hot shot at CMC Markets. What's your official title?Chief market strategist, Peter. I took a big salary cut to get that title.Fair enough. Were you surprised how strongly the market reacted to I guess OPEC and the oil price rise? To some extent certainly. That it came after that was a bit surprising. First of all, OPEC didn't agree to anything so to get such a strong reaction was surprising, but it's pretty clear industrial commodities overall have been depressed and that's kept prices of miners and energy stocks down. They're carrying a risk premium. The risk premium is there because people think commodity prices could rise again. We have to take that risk premium off the table. We saw a great performance from the energy sector, up 6.5%, that's big. BHP up 3.5%, so was the material sector up 2%. About resources today.Is this in a sense a tasit admission that the outlook for the global economy is better, therefore, the demand for resources are better?Some traders argued this morning it's" less worse", they're the same thing. Conditions have improved slightly, no two ways about it. Looking at a mostly positive base case scenario over the last few sessions it has improved slightly. Let's face it, BHP and Rio and Fortescue, they've had a really good run over the last 3 or 4 months. Was part of that they were beaten up more than they should have been?BHP was $23 today or close to. That's a better than 50% jump and yet in that scenario where you've got -You're back in the money!More importantly, my girlfriend's back in the money, Peter. That's much more important. You paid up to $20, didn't you?I didn't, but she did.OK. But I guess... This is part of the discussion I want to have later about big cap companies BHP and Rio fit the bill there, was there anything else positive there helping the market?A lot of the pressure has come off the banks. There's a lot of worries. We love to worry about European banks and Deutsche Bank traded down to an all-time low earlier this week. It's bounced, up 2% overnight. People have realised they've overdone this. If Deutsche Bank gets in trouble it'll be in trouble - that's not an investment case. So they're now starting to take some of that risk back. I expect Deutsche Bank shares to appreciate. There are risks in Europe and particularly the Italian banking system. It's been overdone, just as we saw with BHP and Rio earlier.Do you think because we now live in this electric on-line world where you can react really quickly to things like a worry around Deutsche Bank that when the world saying sell first ask questions later, there are a lot more people who can sell first. Downside swings, take BHP down to $14 and bang we come back up to $23 - is this part of the story, do you think? Absolutely, the speed of reaction is an important part. The lack of rigour in some of the trading that goes on these days is another factor. Emotion is now one of the key factors in markets. That shouldn't be the case, but it is, so yes what that means is share prices will go too high and go too low and see that repeated again and again. And I guess in the old days, in the sensible old days someone who was busy at work didn't really find out what went on until they were driving home in the car, they'd listen in the radio or watch television at night. They didn't have Smartphones to say, "BHP is now down 2%, I'd better jump on this and sell now", anyone can do it?In the '70s you couldn't get a brokerage account and you'd pay commission of 2.5% a trade. You get it on your phone, minimal spreads and commissions, you can be in and out in the course of a couple of minutes.You've got to be careful in many ways?It's the same as the rest of life. If you've got a plan and can stick largely to your plan you're going to do better than somebody who doesn't.Is there still a bit of pillory winning the debate in the market?The market is not as concerned with the presidential question as the headline writers. Some people still read newspapers, but go on.It's a holiday treat. The thing about it is remember this is only the president, it's very likely the Congress will be hung once again with the Republicans in control of one house and the Democrats in control of other. Anyone's agenda is going to be difficult to get through both Houses. Markets are less concerned about the outlook. The president does appoint Supreme Court judges and Federal Reserve Board members. The potential for long-term damage, economic vandalism from at least one of the candidates is real. So we've got a balancing act to do here and I suspect that we'll see that sentiment ebb and flow as we head towards November 8.Janet Yellen could resign if Trump wins? It's an interesting situation he's created. I thought that was disgraceful that any politician would try and politicise the Central Bank. That is so far outside the realms of fair play.I think Donald does disgrace. He specialises in disgrace, that's one of his strong suites.He's only been bankrupt four times, Peter.Four times doesn't improve it. I asked you to look at... I did canvass the view on this program a few months back, is it time to give big caps another go? They were beaten up mid-caps and micros and small caps have done really well. You've done work on whether it is time to give the big caps a second chance?I was intrigued by your question. I'm not thinking about the market that way myself at the moment. I'm thinking in terms of individual stocks. All of the banks are at prices where they're at interest, I prefer CBA over the other three. I think it's about individual stocks, but your point had me thinking about the market differently.There are ETF players now who can buy top 20 stocks. There's probably in the top 50 ETF out there, as well?Exactly right, all sorts of different exposure. I had a look at the top 20 stocks versus the top 50 stocks versus the top 200 or the main index. We've got a chart here, if we can pull it up now. This chart shows the performance. My colour choice wasn't that good, I apologise for that, if you look to the right you'll see that blue line at the bottom there. That is the 20 leaders. This starts as at 1 July, 2015. It takes all of the last financial year and gives us 2 months of this year. You can see from that starting point overall there's been an underperformance. That blue line down the bottom is the 20 leaders. They've underperformed the broader market, both the 50 and the 200. There's no good reason for that in my mind. Top-quality stocks, the largest, the most liquid. Very well-known and explored. The reasons really come down to selling in banks and Woolworths' underperformance. That's why the 20 leaders look so poor. So if you strip that out, I would suggest that there is a real case here for catch-up. That the 20 leaders is likely to catch up with the broader market. It doesn't make sense we should see the 200 running so far ahead of the 20 leaders.It's clear they've been driven by the 50 to 100, the mid-caps and probably the small caps which have done pretty well?Absolutely. It's in that tail, that 150-200 area. It's not as well explored and that means, of course, there's potential for investors who do their homework to get real bar gains.I noticed today one of the brokers lowered their target on Woolies to, I think, $22. It's Deutsche.Do you think it's a fair call?Optimistic.How low do you think Woolies will go?A number starting with 1 before we get a recovery. At $16 it becomes a takeover target. I'd argue that Woolies is not utilising the big advantage that they've had and that is its supply chain. Woolies is very clearly still thinking of itself as a grocer and I'd be taking a leaf out of Wesfarmers' book. Sure it's got Coles, it uses Bunnings, it spins that off, other retailers exposures and other exposures. Woolies noodz to think outside the square. Terrific logistics, centres all over Australia. They've got the ability to distribute. Now at Wesfarmers, they're concerned about Amazon coming into Coles space. I would argue it's easier for a fresh food transporter to go into the dry goods space. Woolies should be taking on Amazon rather than Amazon to take over Woolies. Until they're willing to think outside - 'cause there's no doubt their major business is under attack.Why has Woolies done so well lately? It was struggling around 20, still $23 something?Got up to 26 on the resolution of the Masters deal. The market liked that. Fair play, it was good.That was a question mark hanging over it.Could they sell it and they've found a way to do it. Now it's complicated, not easy, but that was the initial burst of enthusiasm and the change in the sea suite.You mean the management?Yes, I do.Normal people are watching this program!The CEO the CFO.And the chairman.All those changes mean they're addressing the issues, but we haven't seen evidence they've got a strategy and until we get that no news is bad news for Woolies.I'm going to pick out some of the companies that have struggled in the top 20 like QBE.Sure.Are you expecting, if America starts raising interest rates, that's going to be good for QBE?They keep telling me that. I find that a bizarre argument. Within your business you have a short interest rate exposure to US rates and that's why as an insurance company you only invest in US treasuries. That's bizarre. Frankly in investment terms, insurance is a carry business. They collect our premiums, put it on deposit and then they pay us back when we make an insurance claim and the money comes from investing premiums until they have to pay them out. If you're only investing in US treasuries and the $10 note is at 1.5%, you're not going to make enough to ever be a profitable company. So I can't see QBE's logic in this. I know it's the favourite stock of a lot of people. For me it's a perennial disappointer. I don't like the scenarios, I'm not in insurance at all, Peter.So QBE is out. AMP, it started, the market's being nicer to it now. The market was pretty low view of the company about a year or so ago and the share price reflected it. But I'm starting to see a lot more analysts being more positive towards AMP, what's your view?A reprise of the old joke, how do you create a medium-sized Australian fund manager? Start with the No. 1. AMP used to be the No. 1 fund manager and the trajectory has not turned yet. We had optimism 12 months ago. It looked like the team had a grip on the business and were turning it around. They've dealt with some of the issues and in particular, the conflict between being a manufacturer of financial products and a distributor of financial products. The rest of the landscape still needs to deal with that, but they're not getting the money out of it. You've got to make money.I'm going through the top 20. You gave Woolworths the kybosh, QBE the kybosh.You're picking the worst ones.Obviously if you put the banks together and you put the two big resource companies, I guess Woodside is still in the top 20?Yes, it is. Telstra is right up there and at $5 I like the look of Telstra.A lot of my viewers are worried it may well be on a slippery slope, but you're a buyer whenever it goes under 5?It's a utility, we can rely on its income stream. There's no guarantees in income. Buy it at 5, sell it at 5.70.So, any other top 20 company worth giving a big tick to? Wesfarmers I would not give a big tick to.You haven't got a big cross against Wesfarmers?No, I don't. Must be benefiting a bit from the coal price spike?That's it. They've got the industrials and chemical s business. They've got the exposures. Maybe turn the cross to a little tick?I'll take the cross off. Anything else, mate?Other than that mate, no. Once again it's time to be active. It's a stock picker's market. That hasn't changed and it's not likely to change, particularly the volatility heading into the US election.Michael McCarthy, chief market strategist. What a title! That's a $10 title.At CMC Markets. That's it for Macca. We'll be coming back after the break and talking to Nick Scali's CEO Anthony Scali, whose company has really been doing well in recent times. We'll find out why.

Welcome back to Switzer on Sky News Money. In the recent reporting season iconic furniture business Nick Scali reported exceptionally well. To get a handle on why the company is travelling so well in the fast lane, we had the CEO Anthony Scali in the studio. Thanks for coming in.Thank you.I love a CEO who'll show up and talk about his company. A lot don't so congratulations for that.Thanks. The reporting season, what was behind that good report? Brilliant management aside.Our profits were up 50% and that was off the back of opening 15 stores in the last 18 months.That's really fast, 18 in -- 15 in 18 months.It's not easy, we need large floor plates and they were accumulated at a time when we were able to achieve reasonable rentals from landlords. We put together four stores in Perth, a new market and that performed well above our expectations. Then we've had the housing sales boom. People when they buy a house, when they move they have to buy furniture. So we had that whole combination gave us the record profit.Tell us the history of the company, because it was started by your dad, Nick Scali?In 1962 my dad started with one store in Ashfield in Sydney. Look it didn't grow for many years. It was a pretty specialised Italian retailer. When I used to go in there I couldn't denote that, but it was quality.We've always sold quality furniture, but in 2004 we had about nine stores we listed then and now we're at 44 stores. So we had a slow growth until 2004, it was just a business that did well in the family and then we decided to grow the business and now we're at 44 stores. To put on 15 stores in 18 months, that's a really big decision. Was it on the basis that you anticipated that the housing cycle was a good time to have an adventurous investment in expansion, or is this something that you knew the company neededed... ?The strategy is and has been to open more stores and the rate of stores, the number of stores per year really depends on opportunities for us and obtaining the right location. That's got easier as the brands develop we seem to be more attractive to landlords. Also bulky goods centre developers, we're now seeing an important tenant because of the amount of advertising we do. It's got easier the opportunities. We're also now buying opportunities if it's in a key strategic location.So it becomes a real estate investment, as well?I think that's important long-term as a hedge against rent pressure upwards, particularly in key metropolitan locations like Sydney and Melbourne. So that strategy I think is a smart strategy, to get that balance between renting and owning properties as a retailer.It seems to me, I've always thought you to be a NSW business, but clearly you've had a presence in most States?We are in every State now. We opened in Tasmania two weeks ago, in Hobart, so now we're in every State except the Northern Territory, yes.Do you get enormous economies the more stores you open up?Yes. Your costs go down?Correct. We get economies of scale, so if you look at our expense ratio to sales, it's dropping and so hence the net profit to sales percentage is climbing and that's an example of the economies of scale you're talking about. So more stores, yes, more growth.But I presume you have to reallocate your marketing span in Hobart. They wouldn't know you all that well, clearly you have to ramp up the marketing in those type of areas? Particularly when we open a store. When we opened we spent more money on promoting the store marketing. Having gone to Perth, we thought it'd take a while for the stores to mature, but they matured quickly. The housing sector in trouble over there?And we were concerned that - the Perth opening was 2 years in the planning. Once we started we couldn't stop and Perth, Western Australia slowed down, but we feel the niche in that segment and we've had a great performance in Perth. I'll always presume that you targeted a medium to higher income demographic, but is that a mistake by me?I see in the segment where we're middle and high and middle-income bracket if there's such -Like a Dom ayne-type customer, are you?Correct. We're competing with everyone selling furniture.Anyone with a wallet who wants to buy furniture you will accept?That's exactly right. People are surprised at our value. The perception is our prices are higher than what they are. When they come into the store, I think they're surprised at the value and that's one reason we're doing well.What's the furniture market like? I feel as though the whitegoods market in particular is fairly competitive now. Does the same apply to the competitive market?There's too many furniture retailers.You'd like a few people to retire?Correct. It is competitive. The only thing that makes it easier is our product, we try to display a product that's unique, better quality, different features, try and be different to the others and I think that's from my heritage of being in furniture all my life.What's the take that you have on the economy? A business like yours will be sensitive to consumer confidence and the ability to spend and this week we saw the Roy Morgan ANZ consumer confidence number kick up about 4.3% and apparently family finances are in the best shape for 7 years. Are you feeling a more confident consumer in our business?Yes, I think so. It's been a good period for the last 3-4 years and it seems to be continuing. Yes is the answer there. Confident consumer, got low interest rates, house prices are going up. People feel more wealthy. The wealth effect and more consumer confidence, so everything - Australia, Sydney particularly is very strong.Have you seen a change in the nature or the profile of

Welcome back to Switzer. Imagine a company that is designed to make money going after other companies that have been behaving badly. That company would be called Investor Claim Partner and the CEO and founder is John Walker and he joins us at the desk to explain the business model. Great to see you, mate.Good to see you, Peter.You've had a history in chasing companies that have behaved badly. Give us a bit of your background.So lawyer, drained accountant/economist ended up lawyer for 10 years, decided that it was difficult for small guys to actually get recovery in an expensive time-consuming civil justice system. Turned to funding, created, was involved in the creation of IMF, which it listed in 2001. Conducted litigation funding for 15-odd years. A lot of those cases were the sort of cases that we're going to talk about tonight. So basically seeking to enable the laws to be enforced.It's a very interesting model and a lot of people have benefited from the fact that this service has been made available. Why don't you tell us about what the goal is with ICP? Making the market protection laws enforceable. So solely acting for people investing in the ASX, whether they be offshore or internal institutional money, together with retail investors if they wish to join. To monitor the market, identify issues of potential bad behaviour - when I talk about bad behaviour I mean continuous disclosure breaches or misleading conduct - and then work out forensically whether I think it's a matter of factual examination, there is potential for a claim, have that assessed by experts whether it be a silk or a regression analysis from the States. If all of that due diligence works, then ask my clients whether or not they wish to be involved in a claim. It's called book building. Once a book if it gets to be big enough, then to seek to resolve the issues with the company. So actually have a committee appointed by the shareholders, have those shareholders interact with the company, see whether or not a settlement can be reached. If it can be, so be it. If it can't, then seek to involve the lawyers and the funders by tender to conduct the litigation and determine the issue in that way.How unique is the model, or has it been pioneered in other countries and you looked and said, "This is a good model"?We pretty much started up the funding model which is now in Europe and in the States. This is the first company that I'm aware of that's doing this full service-type approach other than for providing the legal service or the funding components.Give us a classic example. Maybe even refer to a former company that no longer exists, but may well be really well known where investors didn't get a chance to have their day in court or... I use the term" get even with the people responsible". You must have thought in the past there were situations where you thought if your company was in existence then you would have had a good chance to go after the people in question?Rather than specific examples, it's still almost impossible for the laws to be enforced against companies where the losses to the market are less than, say, 60, 70, $80 million. The small cap companies with small volumes that have inflated forecasts without reasonable basis or any other type of breach of the law simply don't cause enough loss when you're looking at the costs associated with enforcing those laws to make it commercially viable to have compensation paid. It's no good seeking to have something recovered unless you're going to fight it out in court. If it's not going to settle your brand's too important for that sort of process. It's those sorts of circumstances predominantly.Let me get this clear, you're going to be going after those companies that are smaller than usually get sued by aggrieved investors? Or there's not going to be any lamgts to the sort of companies that you might pursue? On the high side, there's no limitation. It's simply the capacity to be able to prove that there's been a wrongdoing. At the smaller end, it's quite difficult to get the resource s necessary at a cost to make the project commercially viable. You end up having too much costs paid to the lawyers, paid to the funders for the project to have enough in it to be justifiable. These claims should be there for the shareholders. If they're not getting more than 50% of the claim value then there's something wrong on a systematic basis.So are you going to be able to change that?I'd like to. The way I'm thinking of doing it in the smaller end of the market so the $40, 50 million claim value is to seek to have the claims resolved before a lot of time and cost is spent on lawyering and on funding. So mediation is going to be an important issue?Absolutely. Bring the issues forward before you're resourcing the total project to see if it can be resolved. If it obviously can't be, then you go to the stage of bringing in the lawyers and the funders and funding at a tendered basis. Rather than having the people who promote the claims like I've been involved in, in the early days, to have the shareholders go to the market and say well we'd like you to be involved, please give us your best terms.And I guess the bottom line is that you're going to have to be able to make a judgment call that even if you win, will there be money there to compensate the shareholders?Absolutely.Will that mean an assessment of the company's capacity to pay, or is it the company and the director's capacity to pay?Well, often the directors as well, but often the insurance policy as well, potentially auditors when you've got the issues arising from a prospectus rather than a secondary market issue then there are other parties that are potentially involved, even if the company is incapable of complying with its obligations.In a most recent example of Dick Smith, would that be the type of business that you would look at if there was a sufficient number of shareholders that were aggrieved by what happened there?Absolutely. The banks came in March, April in 2015 into that company. They say they were wronged and want to be paid presumably from the insurance policy that's supporting the directors. The way the law works, though, in regards to insurance policies is that the first in time for the claim has priority over later claims. If there's a potential claim for shareholders having been misled in regards to the prospectus or in the secondary market before the banks went in, potentially those shareholder claims could trump the claims of the banks. Would it be possible for an individual investor who thought that they'd been hard done by, by decisions made and they were ASX listed company to be the prime mover and then you'd have to make the judgment call when there's going to be a lot of other people a) willing to participate and b) even stump up some kind of investment to make it happen and then you'd go out and say if other funders are interested in participating as well. Is that the way it works?Whether analysts get upset about the disclosures, whether it's the retail investors, whether it's the institutional investors, whether it's the lawyers or the funders, someone raises the issue and identifies it's worth having a look. It's very difficult for retail or even for single institutions to actually push this along by themselves. You do need to gather resources to make things happen.I'm sorry, I have to ask this cheeky question, because as I'm listening to you my viewers will be thinking this is a business of yours is two days' old. Are you going to be an ambulance chaser in the sense that if you identify that people should be given a fair go, you'll put the balloon up there and see if anyone wants to salute it?That's the business model. You can call it ambulance chasing -I don't say it in a terrible way. If you're helping small investors get their chance to get even with some corporates behaving badly I think it's a good thing.No, that's the model.OK, great stuff. Well John, I look forward to seeing your progress and I'm sure there will be some very interesting cases along the way. Good luck with that.Thank you. That's John Walker from Investor Claim Partner.Well done, Peter.I'm remembering under pressure, as well. Indeed.Thanks very much for joining us, John. Coming up after the break - we'll look at the 100 women of influence in Australia, with Westpac's Ainslie van Onselen.

Welcome back to Switzer. Over the past 10 years there's been a rapid rise in women securing places on boards and public companies. Westpac and the AFR have joined forces and created the 100 Women of Influence Awards and to explain the thinking behind it we have Ainslie van Onselen, Westpac's Director of Women's Markets, Inclusion and Diversity. Thanks for coming on the program.Hi Peter, how are you going?I have to ask the first question, are you related to Peter van Onselen?For my sins, he is my husband and we have two lovely daughters.Tell us about the thinking behind the award?The thinking is to celebrate not just visible leaders out there in the Australian society, but also to uncover the incredible depth of talent of women that exist who are basically change makers, not just change followers, but making a real difference to our communities, in some context in a localised environment, but often in a global scale as well. You see that in some of the categories for this year's winners.You're obviously on the judging panel.That's right, yes. I co-judge it with Joanna Gray who's from the AFR, yes.Tell us, how many sort of potential women go into the mix before the 100 is selected?This year we had a record selection. It's almost over 600 women that apply. It's not easy.And also the pool never diminishes. Every year we get this incredible new women coming out of the woodwork. So it's really worth doing and we're very proud of being involved with the awards.What kinds of people have effectively been identified as being very influential?We have 10 categories, so they cover things like board management, business enterprise, innovation, global. We have a youth category as well, which always continues to impress me. We have working with Corn Ferry who are leaders in recruitment and specialists in identifying talent, we work with them to cull that list down and then the final judging group and this year that judging group consistented of last year's winner Anne Sherry, Elizabeth Broderick.Who worked for Westpac at one stage, as well?Paid parental leave, as well. This year we were able to develop on what Anne did with the parental lending changes that we paid where we automatically now include paid parental leave and also your return to work income automatically in your borrowing calculations.Once upon a time that wasn't included?Or by exception only. Now it's an automatic thing we've done, which we're very proud of.Given your role at the bank, does it mean in a sense you've had to screen all the things that historically have been done by bankers? We love bankers, as you would, they have in a sense often ignored those sorts of issues like including paid parental leave. Are you really happy that bankers are becoming far more aware of how women were discriminated against? Not only in the workplace, but also in lending and all that sort of stuff? The banks used to make women retire when they became pregnant in the '50s and '60s?As did all the government bodies at the time. Real progress has been made since the '60s in this environment. The '60s was when we had our first female bank teller. Westpac is an employer of choice, we have targets to improve our gender diversity in our leadership population from the board to our GMs to that entire leadership base. We have female leadership development programs. We have mandates for things like 50% of women on our short lists, 50% of women of our graduate intake to be women, 50% of any person to go on our high potential leadership programs are also women. We have the target and we do believe that targets change culture and we've seen that. When we introduced them in 2010 our women in leadership number was 33%. As of the end of last year's reporting period end of '15 it was 46% and we're on our way to achieving our target of 50% by September next year.I guess it's been made a lot easier, because when you look at the young women in the best degrees in university, they are now dominating, aren't they? Law, commerce and even engineering they're starting to show a bit of -? Which is terrific because we want to see more women in STEM degrees. Or STEARM degrees depending on which you use. We've partnered with Vogue Codes this year with Vogue trying to show women that technology is not just in the kind of traditional space, but can apply to things like fashion magazines and also to banks. We definitely are interested and keen in getting fabulous women into the technology divisions.It always seems to me it's easier for a bigger corporation to embrace this and bigger organisations should be leading the way.Yes and no, I think. Big organisations have their own bureaucracy et cetera. It takes considered and targeted campaigns and real leadership from the stop. Are you seeing the same thing happening in small and medium enterprises? Sometimes the cost of it can be a real issue, you can be a great supporter of young women in your business, but then like a lot of young women, they become pregnant and it becomes a real economic challenge for a really supportive employer?I think the larger organisations are leading the way, because they've identified that this isn't just a nice thing to do it's a business imperative. If you want the best ideas, the best innovation of thought then you need to improve the diversity of your employee base and reflect the diversity of your customer base to get the best solutions. Where smaller and medium enterprises will succeed is where they adopt policies and procedures. You see that with companies like Elasian who get voted as fantastic employers in this capacity.Getting back to the awards, when do we find out who's the most influential women in Australia?A gala dinner in the Town Hall on 27 October. All 10 category winners will be announced that night and the overall winner will be announced, as well. We'll have 500 alumni by the end of October, which is fantastic.A pretty powerful group of women, isn't it?Certainly is and Anne Sherry has been doing a great job bringing that alumni together as well, to achieve a collective outcome.Is there a category of journalists? 'Cause there are a lot of influential female journalists? We have a culture, arts and sports category and Lisa Wilkinson has been identified as one of the top 100 and she has used her profile for significant good in the community. With 'The Big Issue' and other charities and organisations. She's used it to try and make a difference.When you think of the combined influence that Lisa and her Boofhead husband Peter have it's quite substantial, isn't it?That's what we're trying to find. Not just visible leaders making a difference, but those women in society who would otherwise go unrecognised. I had a fantastic lunch in Perth a few weeks ago where I met with some of the alumni. A youth worker was involved in youth suicide and before the awards had a reach of 30,000 students. I was proud when she told me now her reach has extended to 80,000 students on really very key suicide prevention strategies.What I love about this, and I think you're aware that Telstra has the Businesswoman Awards, my wife is one of the judges so I'm aware of the value of these sorts of things. Are young women picking up on the value of the awards?The youth category is one of the strongest we've seen. Fantastic work with creative services, as well, so a profit business with also a not-for-profit business, as well. We're seeing more and more of that and that seems to be quite a common trait among millennials. Finding an avenue where you can have a profitable business, but a social enterprise component within that. The lady who owns Whole Foods which is organic food for children, Monica Meldrum this year is one of our 100. We've seen that with what she's doing, as well.The younger generations we find good reasons to poke fun at them, but they have a pretty good social conscience, don't they?Absolutely. Maybe because their parents have banged that message. If people want to know is there a website that will give more details about what's going on.There's Rubyconnection.com.au and the tickets will go up on sale publicly on Monday.Congratulations with this and I look forward to hearing who the winner is and I hope you have a great evening.Thank you very much, Peter.That's the show for tonight. Thanks for joining us. Don't forget, best of Switzer over the weekend and I'll see you next week.