Tag Archives: walmart

Moving Beyond ‘Greed Is Good’

Last month marked the 50th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s defining essay on the role of the corporation, which concluded that “there is one and only one social responsibility of business — to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.”

That conclusion has been taken to such extremes — think, “Greed is good,” the signature line from the movie “Wall Street” — that a backlash has been developing. I think the insurance industry can support what might be thought of as a “beyond greed” movement, and even ride it. Doing so would help our public image, while benefiting the customer and — dare I say it? — perhaps even increasing industry profits.

Now, there’s lots of power to Friedman’s argument. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have guided business for so long. Businesses need to generate profits to keep investing and improving in ways that benefit us, the customers — think of all the things that Amazon has been able to deliver cheaply and quickly to you since the start of the pandemic because of Jeff Bezos’ ferocious investments in his business. (Who knew I even needed eight sets of chopsticks, an air fryer and 63 plants?) Profits also provide feedback that help businesses get better at serving us. If a company is generating lots of earnings, the market is telling the company that it’s doing well. If not, the company needs to try something different.

My old friend Andy Kessler notes in a column in the Wall Street Journal this week that Friedman specified that a company focusing solely on profits must “stay within the rules of the game, which is to say, engage in open and free competition without deception fraud.” Andy says that, within the right structure, Friedman’s focus on profits produces huge benefits for society.

But cracks have been appearing in that structure. For instance, tobacco companies lied for decades about the dangers of smoking, and oil and gas companies likewise hid what they knew about greenhouse gases and climate change. Profits thrived. But did the companies show social responsibility? Not so much.

More recently, social tensions have heightened about income inequality, which can be traced in part to the laser focus on profits. That focus has certainly pushed the upper end of corporate pay far higher by creating a vicious circle (a virtuous circle if you’re one of the senior executives benefiting). The circle looks something like this:

To encourage the CEO to drive profits and nothing but profits, his or her pay is tied to the stock price — boost earnings, giving the stock price a kick, and you win big. CEOs are then evaluated against a peer group and are slotted into a quartile. They are paid like others in that grouping. Sounds fair enough, right? But who wants to tell the CEO that he or she is below average? In fact, in the chumminess of the board room, CEOs are almost all stars. That means they are paid above average — which raises the average, again and again and again, for each annual review cycle. Add in the potential for big gains on stock options, and the system looks increasingly unfair to anyone not fortunate enough to be at the high (and always getting higher) end of the scale.

Meanwhile, wages have been stagnant in the lower ranks of businesses. In the past, gains from productivity tended to be shared with workers, in the form of higher wages. In recent decades, almost all the gains have been captured by companies feeling pressure to produce maximum profits.

With the sense building that the pursuit of profits and nothing but profits has taken us too far to the greed end of the scale, the Business Roundtable released a statement in August 2019 signed by 181 CEOs “who commit to lead their companies for the benefit of all stakeholders — customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders.”

Such an approach, known as “stakeholder capitalism,” turns out to be easier to articulate than to execute. For instance, Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce, who was one of the champions of the Business Roundtable statement, declared a “victory for stakeholder capitalism” in late August when he reported quarterly sales exceeding $5 billion — then announced the next day that he was cutting 1,000 jobs. He argued that the cuts weren’t inconsistent with a pledge to benefit all stakeholders, but the 1,000 people losing their jobs surely felt differently.

A study looking at all the companies whose CEOs signed the “stakeholder capitalism” statement found, a year later, that they hadn’t followed through. I’m not especially surprised. You may value your employees greatly, but, if you’re Walmart, you’re not going to suddenly start paying clerks $15 or $20 an hour unless you know that your competitors will, too. Otherwise, you’d cede an advantage to them. So, I don’t think much will change until there is some kind of public pledge by all companies to do a series of very specific things for employees, communities, etc. or until government mandates something such as an increase in the minimum wage.

But the sentiment is there. There is a movement afoot to get businesses to look beyond profits and focus on broader issues, and it sounds to me a lot like what insurance is all about: We’re here to help clients reduce their risks and to recover quickly when the inevitable losses occur. We don’t sell widgets; we help people in their time of need. Who better to lead a “beyond greed” approach to business?

Back in the early days of the personal computer, when I was covering technology for the Wall Street Journal, the CEO of a successful software company told me his strategy consisted of trying to spot a parade. He didn’t have to organize the parade. He just had to put on a drum major costume, jump in front of it and lead it somewhere.

The more-than-profits movement seems like a parade that could — or even should — be led by insurers.

My suggestion would be less “stakeholder capitalism” as the starting point and more Peter Drucker. Drucker, the management guru whom I had the privilege of interviewing twice, began with the customer. Rather than the diffuse focus of “stakeholder capitalism” or the harsh emphasis on profits that Friedman advocated, Drucker argued that “the purpose of business is to create and keep a customer.”

That focus on the customer not only fits the historic ethos of the industry but seems to be where we’re heading. I’ve never seen an industry talk so much about the customer experience or the customer journey. And I’ve started to see the industry’s focus shift to what customers really want: to avoid losses, rather than to be reimbursed after they occur. Just in the past couple of weeks, Travelers announced that it was using artificial intelligence to help clients survey their workplaces and spot ergonomic issues that could cause injuries, and CSAA announced a pilot program to provide fire retardant that Californians can spray on brush surrounding their homes as a wildfire approaches. The list could go on.

Focusing on the customer could lead as far as insurers wanted to go into the “stakeholder capitalism” movement, with its emphasis on communities, employees and suppliers, as well as customers and shareholders. After all, clients live in communities that would welcome fewer car accidents, a reduction in home invasions and theft and other benefits that insurers could facilitate. Insurers will invest in employees and relations with suppliers as part of caring for customers. And if Drucker was right — he almost always was — focusing on creating and keeping a customer will make the profits flow, keeping those shareholders happy.

In fact, I’d argue that the industry is at a point where attaching to the hip of the customer could lead in all sorts of interesting directions and new revenue streams. Why just focus on serving a client after a car accident? Why not begin the relationship way upstream, installing a camera that watches both the road and the driver and uses AI to make sure the driver is paying attention as he heads into a known danger spot like a blind intersection? Why not continue the relationship way downstream, helping a client run errands via Uber or Lyft while waiting for a car to be repaired?

When I hear complaints about capitalism, I think of the line concerning democracy that is generally attributed to Winston Churchill, that “democracy is the worst system of government — except for all the others.” I’d agree that capitalism is the worst economic system — except for all the others. Capitalism, while messy, drives an extraordinary amount of innovation and has been the engine driving the progress of civilization for centuries now.

But maybe it can be a little better. And maybe the insurance industry can help lead the way.

Stay safe.

Paul

P.S. Here are the six articles I’d like to highlight from the past week:

A New Boom for Life Insurance?

Life insurance can move past the 250-year-old, risk-focused transaction and become a core component within a life, wealth and health ecosystem.

Keys to Limiting Litigation Liability

Risks associated with GL and AU claims can be managed, even with “social inflation,” “nuclear verdicts” and tough jurisdictions.

How Analytics Can Tame ‘Social Inflation’

Claims data within insurance companies is being increasingly seen as a key asset, not a byproduct of the claims process.

P&C Insurers Shift Course in Pandemic

In 2021, there looks to be a major increase in overall tech spending and a rapid acceleration of digital transformation plans.

Insurtechs’ Role in Transformation

Insurtechs are important for the development of the industry — but as tools. Incumbents must still get the real transformation done.

State of Diversity, Inclusion in Insurance

Organizations that adhere to a rigid hierarchy throw up roadblocks to diversity & inclusion due to preconceived notions.

The Silos Are Coming Down

While I’ve heard many too many empty promises of corporate synergies over the years, I’ve learned that one form of cross-selling really does work: “Do you want fries with that?”

So, I’ve been waiting (and hoping) for insurers to find ways to achieve similar sorts of easy, intuitive crossover sales.

There are already a few combo meal sorts of offerings that show promise — e.g., Tesla bundling auto insurance with its cars, or Comcast selling insurance into homes that are tethered to it via coaxial cable — but my ears really perked up last week when stories surfaced about Walmart forming an insurance agency.

It just makes sense. With 5,000 outlets in the U.S. alone and 265 million customers worldwide, Walmart has a target-rich environment for insurance sales. Many, in fact, are visiting Walmart to pick up pharmaceuticals or to buy other items related to their healthcare, so health insurance is on their minds. Walmart, given its relentless efficiency, could easily develop insurance products that undercut competitors’ prices and would have the credibility with customers to sell boatloads of those products.

In fact, Walmart wouldn’t even have to generate the sorts of profit margins that competitors do, because a tighter relationship with customers on their health needs would bring them into stores more often and let Walmart generate profits on groceries, home goods and all sorts of other products. (Regulators will surely weigh in on what constitutes fair competition.)

Walmart signaled that it will begin with a niche, Medicare Advantage, that plays to its price-sensitive demographic. In fact, through a $4 generic drug program, Walmart often provides pharmaceuticals to customers for less than their Medicare Advantage insurance would charge them, so Walmart has already made inroads.

In research I’ve done with Chunka Mui on major strategic mistakes, the kind of adjacency move that Walmart is making raises red flags, because retailing and health insurance have little in common. But Walmart has done all the right preparation, having spent more than 15 years testing the waters in health care and insurance — hosting insurance agents onsite, setting up joint ventures with insurers, putting clinics in some stores, buying and deploying technology to help customers manage medications, experimenting with telemedicine and much more.

Walmart is also starting small with its agency, advertising for employees and building an internal capability, rather than spending a bunch of money on a splashy acquisition or two. (Sears made that mistake in the early 1980s when it bought Coldwell Banker and Dean Witter, only to be distracted by integration issues and take its eye off the ball in its core business, which it ceded to… Walmart.) So, I see no particular obstacles for Walmart.

In fact, health insurance is such a mess that many customers would love an outsider’s approach, especially if the outsider is, like Walmart, known for being straightforward and inexpensive.

Given the battle to the death between Walmart and Amazon, it’s reasonable to think that Amazon might now accelerate whatever plans it has for health insurance. It might behoove insurers to get ready, and even to go on the offensive, looking for partners outside the industry rather than waiting for them to define an opportunity in insurance.

Insurers won’t be pushing fries and, alas, can’t offer dollar meals or dollar anythings, but there are lots of healthy options that can be offered and sold easily if insurers get creative about how to bundle their products with partners’.

Stay safe.

Paul

P.S. Here are the six articles I’d like to highlight from the past week:

6 Life, Health Trends in the Pandemic

Life and health carriers are responding with new protection products and services.

Reigniting Growth in U.S. Life Insurance

Agile response to COVID-19 bodes well for returning the life insurance sector to long-term growth and wider financial protection in society.

COVID-19 Highlights Gaps, Opportunities

The pandemic and the response to it have highlighted significant gaps in industry offerings that are yet to be resolved.

Another Reason for Insurers to Embrace AI

AI alerts have played and continue to play a critical role in detecting and controlling future outbreaks like COVID-19.

Wildfire Season Off to Perilous Start

Fires can create their own weather: Smoke-infused thunderstorms produce lightning that starts new fires and can lead to fire tornadoes.

Lasting Impact of Plaid’s Innovation

The temptation to try to own all the value at every layer of a solution can be fatal, and is something Plaid brilliantly avoided.

Walmart May Redefine Primary Care

When Catalyst for Payment Reform hosted a webinar that provided a glimpse into Walmart’s healthcare strategy and management plans, Lisa Woods, senior director of U.S. benefits, talked about a new program to simplify and improve healthcare, particularly primary care, for Walmart’s million-plus associates and their families.

She alluded to Walmart’s well established and continuously expanding Centers of Excellence (COE) programs, as well as two new programs. First is a personal healthcare Assistant, powered by healthcare navigation firm Grand Rounds, that helps Walmart associates with billing and appointment issues, finding a quality provider, understanding a diagnosis, coordinating transportation, arranging child care during appointments and addressing other important patient needs.

Walmart has also broadened its telehealth offerings, including for preventive health, chronic care management, urgent care and behavioral health. All video visits have a $4 copay, and associates can book an appointment with a primary care physician within one hour and a behavioral health visit within one week, making services highly accessible. Partners for this program are Doctors on DemandGrand Rounds, and Healthscope Benefits.

Daniel Stein and Matthew Resnick, from physician profiler partner Embold Health, described how their data collection/analytics approach identifies physicians with histories of providing the most appropriate care. In three markets – Northwest Arkansas, Tampa/Orlando and Dallas/Ft. Worth – Walmart’s “Featured Provider” program will connect patients to the high-performing providers that Embold has identified in eight specialties: primary care, cardiology, gastroenterology, endocrinology, obstetrics, oncology, orthopedics and pulmonology. Walmart has been a key partner in the development of Embold Health – Stein, the CEO, Stein is a former Walmart medical director – and its efforts to accurately profile the quality of healthcare delivery at the individual physician level. The health outcomes improvements and savings associated with only using high-performing physicians should be profound.

See also: 11 Ways Amazon Could Transform Care  

The changes that Walmart has announced reflect a laser focus on solving specific problems, like overtreatment and patient difficulty with navigating the system, that plague all primary care programs. The company has been tinkering with and testing different primary care models for a decade or more. As with its COE program, the goals of Walmart’s new healthcare programs are a more refined, disciplined and methodical set of innovations focused on driving better care, a better patient experience and lower cost and that, for the most part, are not yet available to most primary care patients elsewhere in U.S. healthcare.

As a side note, it’s worth recognizing that, in an ideal world, the major health plans – e.g., United, CIGNA, Aetna, Anthem – with many millions of lives covered, would have pioneered these approaches to manage healthcare risk, to improve health outcomes and to reduce cost. The fact that payers haven’t been motivated along these lines is a reflection of the perverse incentives that have driven the U.S. health system for decades, that all patients and purchasers are up against and that have facilitated the kinds of innovations discussed here.

Walmart attacked these problems because it is at risk for its population and its costs. Few employers have the resolve and the resources available to develop key innovations that can move an industry like healthcare forward.

Not surprisingly, Walmart appears to see an opportunity here and has larger plans. Walmart almost certainly believes its healthcare efforts are applicable beyond its own population, and, like HavenKroger and Costco, has staked out a healthcare business strategy. Primary care are logical services to begin with, and Walmart has announced that its pricing will be 30% to 50% below conventional primary care prices. Walmart’s focus on improving experience, health outcomes and cost, combined with its national footprint and deep resource base, could immediately catapult it to the first rank of competitors in this space.

No doubt, Walmart has its eye on providing primary care services to groups as well as individuals. Relationships with health plans would allow the company to share in the savings it generates through the primary care platform and associated programs.

Think about the territory covered here. Walmart intends to:

  • Develop highly price competitive primary care clinics across the country.
  • Offer very low-cost telemedicine that can be a convenient pathway to primary care and other care, streamlining care processes.
  • Implement a personal healthcare assistant that can simplify navigating the healthcare system and expedite a much enhanced patient experience.
  • Connect to the highest-performing local physicians and regional COEs in each specialty, driving appropriate and disrupting inappropriate care and cost, in strong contrast to the inappropriate care and cost patterns that have come to dominate U.S. healthcare.
  • Develop some tie to health plans that would allow the company to benefit from the health outcomes improvements and savings that its management approaches create.

A vigorous primary care campaign by Walmart would undoubtedly threaten traditional primary care models and spur competitive innovation among progressive primary care organizations, especially if the company publicly conveyed a dedicated focus on transparent management of full continuum health outcomes and cost. This would powerfully differentiate Walmart’s primary care efforts from those of competitors like Walgreens and CVS, whose convenience care primary care models are mainly dedicated to maintaining the status quo.

See also: Avoiding Data Breaches in Healthcare  

Walmart’s activities in this space are one signal that the old paradigm in health care is waning and that a new, value-based healthcare market is emerging. It can’t happen soon enough.

How Tech Is Eating the Insurance World

Amazons and Apples and Googles. Oh my…

What do these companies have in common? Devout brand loyalty from the modern consumer coupled with world-leading technology. This poses a massive threat to insurance companies that value ownership of the customer above all else and are seriously lagging on tech. In a post-financial crisis world where financial brands are reflexively distrusted by modern consumers that have incredibly high digital UX standards, technology brands and emerging insurtech startups have a considerable advantage in winning future insurance business.

Amazon, Apple, Google and other tech giants don’t do anything small. It would be foolish for insurers to think that these disruptors will enter the industry to play nice and simply serve as their brokers or lead generators. They have capital in spades, massive captive audiences, piles of valuable data and are perfectly comfortable navigating complicated regulatory landscapes. Insurers like to hide behind this regulatory complexity as a reason to dismiss new market entrants, but this is simply a speed bump for those who want to make insurance a point of focus – not an insurmountable barrier to entry.

The Google Experience

Google dipped its toe in the industry in 2015 with Google Compare and then quickly withdrew in 2016. Insurers like to point to this as the shining example of how technology companies “don’t understand insurance” or how they “underestimate the complexity of the industry.” What they forget (or simply don’t mention) is Google’s core business model – advertising. What is the sixth most expensive word on Google AdWords? Insurance ($48.41 per CLICK!). Who buys that word and drives significant revenue to Google? Insurers. Google’s exit was not the result of execution failure or naivete; it was a consequence of rocking the boat with some of their highest-value advertising customers. The rest of the companies listed above, among countless other tech giants and well-funded startups, do not have that same conflict. Insurers are not immune to disruption from them.

Shifting Consumer Behavior

The modern consumer is a digital native and does not want to speak to people on the phone or fill out piles of paperwork. Consumers want to be offered insurance when it’s top of mind – how they want it, when they want it, from brands they trust, instantly.

One of the biggest problems we see with tech-insurance partnerships is insurers’ insistence on controlling the underwriting and sales process, which creates massive friction with technology companies that offer far superior digital experiences. Consumers don’t want to leave Amazon to start a separate purchasing process on an insurer’s website, and Amazon doesn’t want them to leave its site, either. This is something that is easily solved through API-driven technology systems and programmatic underwriting – words that often give insurers heart palpitations.

See also: What if Amazon Entered Insurance?  

Consumers don’t want to shop around for insurance on quote comparison sites. They don’t want to engage with insurance companies more than necessary or share troves of personal data through an insurance app. They want to purchase insurance when they need it, pay for what they use and never think about it again. Insurance incumbents have responded by building their own apps, offering discounts for more shared data and doubling down on advertisement spending.

Insurance in the Background

Insurance is an important feature, but not always the star product. It’s sold well to the modern consumer either purely digitally or as part of a broader offering – typically at the point of purchase for a non-insurance product or service. That’s an unpleasant thought for insurers that take a tremendous amount of pride in their history, processes and brands. However, letting pride and status quo dictate your business strategy is a good way to get your business killed.

Why not offer homeowners insurance in 15 seconds (not minutes) through fully digital workflow like Kin does? Why not combine cyber protection software and cyber insurance like Paladin Cyber does, so risk is reduced even further in the event of a cyber incident? Why not offer white-labeled SMB insurance to the millions of third-party retailers currently selling on Amazon? Or episodic renter’s coverage directly through Airbnb at the point of booking?

Here are a few reasons why insurers aren’t being more innovative:

  • insurers’ technology simply can’t support seamless distribution through digital platforms
  • insurers/agents/brokers insist on owning the customer
  • insurers don’t want to alienate their traditional distribution network of brokers and agents
  • insurers want full underwriting control through traditional, and often analog, methods
  • insurers don’t want to share data with tech companies but expect tech companies to open their proprietary analytics models to insurers.

This simply will not work.

The Everything Store

Apple already disrupted the warranty space by owning the whole AppleCare stack for themselves. Google has the conflicts discussed earlier. Facebook has the same. As a result, I believe Amazon is the most likely tech giant to make a big splash in the insurance industry as they continue to build their “Everything Store.”

We already see what they’re doing in healthcare, their investment in Acko in India, and rumors about an imminent play in banking. They recently acquired Ring, which has obvious insurance applications, for a reported $1 billion. The writing is on the wall. While I’m not entirely convinced that consumers will search Amazon.com for auto or home insurance, having millions of third-party seller merchants, adding 300,000 in the U.S. in 2017 alone, is a good starting point as far as addressable commercial insurance markets are concerned.

See also: 11 Ways Amazon Could Transform Care  

I am a huge admirer of what Jeff Bezos has built at Amazon, and I’m modeling Boost after what they did in the data storage and hosting space with AWS. It would be foolish for anyone to underestimate the impact a company like Amazon can have on any industry – no matter how old, established or huge the insurance incumbents’ businesses may be. Just ask Barnes & Noble, Walmart, media companies or any grocery store right now.

If India Overcomes Its Inferiority Complex

Walmart’s acquisition of Flipkart has created shockwaves in India, with the realization that the vast majority of its $16 billion price will go to foreign investors, namely Tiger Global, SoftBank, Naspers and Accel Partners. Now Indian investors are kicking themselves for missing out on the largest e-commerce exit ever. But they have no one to blame but themselves: Flipkart tried hard to raise money locally but was ridiculed and turned away, leaving only the foreign giants to rescue it.

This pattern will repeat itself until India’s investors realize that the best opportunities are not in Silicon Valley but at home. Frankly, I sympathize with Flipkart founders Sachin and Binny Bansal because I, too, have seen the Indian inferiority complex at work.

In a talk I gave at INK India in 2014, I predicted that a billion Indians would gain internet connectivity through their smartphones within a few years, and that this would begin to transform the country. Tens of thousands of startups building health sensors, robots, drones and commerce and infrastructure tools and hundreds of thousands of application writers addressing local problems could solve not only India’s problems but those of the world.

See also: India’s Coming of Age in Digital  

I also tried educating the executives of Wipro and Infosys. When they told me of the huge funds they were setting up to invest in Silicon Valley, I warned them that no one there cared for their companies or investments; at best, they would be offered bottom-of-the-barrel deals and be left chasing rainbows. And that is largely what has happened.

I live in Silicon Valley and am a professor, not an investor. I did, however, get involved with one Indian startup, because it had world-changing potential yet was dying on the vine. Indian investors ridiculed the notion that something of such magnitude could emerge from India; all they did was waste the time of the founders.

The company, HealthCubed, develops a compact medical-grade device that provides more than 40 measures and tests, including blood pressure, electrocardiography, blood oxygenation, heart-rate variability, blood sugar, blood hemoglobin and urine protein and is able to diagnose diseases such as HIV AIDS, syphilis, dengue fever and malaria. These are the same tests that labs and hospitals provide — but for less than one hundredth of their cost in the U.S.

Simply having the lab results immediately constitutes a huge benefit in a rural health clinic. Additionally, the data can be immediately uploaded to the cloud, allowing for rapid evaluation by a remote physician. And analysis of the bounty of data thus collected will enable fresh insights into many conditions.

I rarely have a problem getting Indian executives and VCs to return my emails. Yet when I wrote to them about HealthCubed, most didn’t even respond. Ironically, the investors who did respond said the valuation of the company was too high — without even asking what it was.

So I gave up on India and advised HeathCubed CEO Ramanan Laxminarayan to register the company in Delaware and move the intellectual property to the U.S. Then I invested my savings in the company and joined the board. James Doty, MD, a world-renowned neurosurgeon and entrepreneur who founded Stanford University’s Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education, did the same. He found the technology to be more advanced and more effective than anything he had ever seen.

Acumen, a New York–based impact investment fund, also invested in the company, as did American moguls Ray Dalio, Ross Perot Jr, Bridget Koch and actress Sela Ward and her VC husband Howard Sherman. One of Silicon Valley’s most respected investors, Raju Reddy, and an alumnus group from BITS Pilani also readily supported the company.

The product is now helping hundreds of thousands of villagers in more than a hundred districts of four states of India, thanks to the Aditya Birla Group. The world’s largest NGO, BRAC, is using it to improve health and create employment in hundreds of villages in Bangladesh. Tens of thousands of Rohingya refugees in United Nations clinics outside the borders of Myammar are being diagnosed with it. And it is now set to roll out in Ghana, Senegal and Nigeria.

See also: What India Can Teach Silicon Valley  

I expect that, by the end of 2019, HealthCubed will have done more than 100 million diagnostic tests; and that eventually products such as this will disrupt the U.S. healthcare system itself and will quickly spread throughout the Americas — and that India’s VCs will have another cause for regret.

That’s not to say Indian entrepreneurs shouldn’t take some of the blame. As Silicon Valley’s Hemant Kanakia said to me in an email: “Part of the problem I have observed while being an investor in Indian startups in the last six years is that Indian entrepreneurs have a short-term outlook; they want to make money and live the lifestyle of the rich. Sachin Bansal had no ambition like founders of China’s Tencent or Baidu have — of conquering the world.”

Yet even Silicon Valley was like this when its ecosystem was in its infancy. I’ll bet that as a generation of founders such as the Bansals achieves great success, they, too, will develop grand ambitions.