K Bank

Fortune Fintech Innovators Asia showcases dynamic financial services companies in one of the world’s fastest-growing regions.

K Bank_Fintech Innovators Asia 2024

Fintech Innovators Asia

Rank within category

K-Bank is South Korea’s first internet-only bank and is backed by domestic heavyweights like the telecommunications company KT Corporation, and Woori Bank. K-Bank also works closely with Upbit, South Korea’s largest cryptocurrency exchange. The bank offers a full range of banking services including deposit accounts, debit cards, and small loans.

K Bank Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings

legacy

k bank

Companies

K Bank | Fortune

K Bank Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings | Fortune

Asia’s shift to digital money has been swift: QR codes, super-apps, and online brokerages have fostered high levels of digital literacy and confidence among consumers. A new phase is now taking shape, as stablecoins reshape cross-border payments, central banks test digital currencies, and payment infrastructure adapts to an agentic future. The promise is faster, cheaper, and more inclusive finance—but it also raises difficult questions around security, fraud, and privacy. Two finance leaders chart the future of digital money, and its impact on consumers, institutions and global markets. 

Zhuoqun Bian, President, Ant Digital Technologies
Benson Wong, Managing Director, Head of Digital, J.P. Morgan Private Bank 
Fang Wang, Executive Editor, Shanghai, Fortune China 

Paying It Forward: What's Next in Digital Finance?

Conferences

Zhou Qing, I want to start with you. Good afternoon. So and has fundamentally reshaped how people across China and Asia pay over the last 10 years. Looking 10 years ahead, how do you see the very act of paying? evolve? Will it become increasingly more invisible embedded into our daily um routines um until we no longer feel we're making transactions at all. Thanks for the question. As I'm from N Group, payment is the DNA of our business, and I'm very famous to talk about the payment. In the past 10 years, I think everybody left home need to carry a wallet. Then after that maybe 5 or 6 years ago we called it e-wallet. Maybe the phone is the is the e-wallet, but now especially in Hangzhou we when we do the payment we just put down the we we tap the machine then boom it's done. So we can say the payment ah is disappeared. We even don't know. To happen and just to just to process this so it's amazing. So, ah, let's looking forward the next 10 years, ah, we see the payment will be invisible invisible because a lot of AIOT there's a biometrics you can use your phone, watch, even your glasses. So, so it's invisible. And they, uh, it also becomes very intelligent. Maybe your agent pay the do the payment on behalf of you. You have the agent. You authorize the agent. The agent has its own wallet, e-wallet, and they have the credit line. They pay buy the things on the line with the with the authorization from your side and ah. Ah, choose the service. Let's imagine if you, ah, if you go to the, it's good to have a vacation, you needed to book the hotel, you needed to, to reserve the table, you needed to have your ticket, air ticket, the train tickets. A lot of things you need to do by yourself in currently, but after, after that, maybe in the following 5 years or maybe only 1 or 2 years, your agents, your steward agents help you do all the stuff. They match the price. They purchase the service. They do a lot of the broth. They just pick, pick the very reasonable good price. For you, it's a, it's such an amazing for a future. There was before that, ah, I have to say, ah, ah, technology need to improve very quickly. AI and the blockchain makes it happen because it's the payment is instant. It's micro. It's 24 24/7 7 days and I think AI is your agent. They, they performed all the activities on behalf of you, but still need a super ledger which is blockchain. They, they record the transaction. Even the transaction is very micro, very ancient. They record on the. on the ladder and I think the infra is AI and blockchain is the info for future payment. That's a very exciting um future we're looking at, but we will come back to Agentic commerce in a while. But I want to return to Benson. Um, you at JPMorgan Private Bank, um, you serve clients who Uh, are managing complex multi-generational wealth across borders. In that environment, how do you see AI augmenting a private banker and where do you draw the line that ensures the final relationship with your clients remains deeply human? Great, that's a great question. And, and firstly, thank you for the opportunity to be here. I, I couldn't agree more with what Duo Chuan had said in relation to AI in the context of payments and I draw the analogy if we look at and I think with technology 10 years is really far. I would just say in however cycles and events. I think we're seeing a change in private banking or frankly investments in general that has historically been more episodic, right, like unique events to something more continuous and integrated in your day to day. So historically you would just check your investments once in a while, maybe talk to your private banker once a month. Now I fully agree that things have to be more continuous. I also think that the accessing of this information is likely gonna be moving away from an atlas world and obviously products are becoming more commoditized in terms of financial products. Fully agree with the trajectory of the, the direction of where this industry is going. With that being said, I think as it pertains to private banking, where we look at differentiation, which I'll come back to why AI can't or would in the context of integration is in private banking. We're differentiated not if we're just pushing a product. If you're just pushing a product, pushing a specific thing, you're being very transactional and that's very commoditized. I think differentiation we're looking at as a business model is one where the answers are not clear cut. To the point about you have a large sale, to the point that you have complex situations, you have succession planning, these are all Trust, judgment, and access that has not been able to be replicated with technology, if you will. And so they would look at this is with AI and relationship management advisors. I don't think it's actually a replacement or displacement of it. I think it's a redistribution of labor. I think what ends up happening is that where it comes to identifying what is the best solution when it comes to thought leadership, providing access, knowing where to provide that service, that's something where that has to be something where the human gets involved. I think then that AI can help the prep work in gathering on the side before there. I also would think that just to not to be remiss, I actually do believe that AI can be in the front facing the client alongside the advisor. We actually at JPMorgan have invested and have rolled out a lot of really great directed client AI capabilities that don't have human in the middle that are reg approved. But I think the important part here is that where our clients demand something that is speed, convenient, low stake information. We should definitely let them deal with AI because that actually has served their benefit where there's trust, judgment, complexity, then those things should definitely be something enabled through digital and managed by a human by a trusted advisor in that contract. It sounds to me that AI is not replacing trust, it's just reallocating it. So, uh, Zhou Qing, let me come back to you, um, more on agentic commerce, uh, that is coming to us. So as AI agents, um, are not just doing recommending, uh, products, um, services. To us, uh, they start to actually purchase, book and pay on our behalf. I wonder what does this mean to merchants and banks, uh, what kind of preparation and technology they have to deploy so that they will eventually one day start to deal with algorithms as their counterparts. Ah, it's a, it's a good question. Um, we are talking about economy, agentic economy, we have to say, ah, actually we are experienced that just like I mentioned in the we are looking forward the the payment may be the payment between the agent agents. We call the agentic payment. Ah, the, the, it's the version we are experienced, but ecos is still needed to catch up or I have to say that the eco ecos had to be replicated this kind of changes. And then when we talk about the ecos, we have to to to reference to ah financial institutions, financial systems, compliance and the regulator and enterprises. All those stakeholders are the ecos participants. So, ah, to from ah from ah a financial institution perspective. Ah, when we initiate the transaction, we have to do the KYC, know your clients, but in the, ah, aging, aging economy, we have to say you need to know your agents. Who's the agent you you you belong to or you get ah properly authorized or you, you, when you, when the agent does things in your mouth, who takes the responsibility. So all these things. to from human to agent. So the technology, especially for new new new agents, 24 hours, 1010 24 hours in the 7 days instant, all the infra need to be improved or rebuilt. The in the in the past few years, all the infra are built for humans, but looking forward. All the infra needs to be rebuilt or enhanced to aging because all the participants may be human, may be aging. You need to know to your to know your agents much more than know your customers. I think it is very important. Technology may technology needs to provide this kind of service to the to the financial institution and the regulatory systems. I said from the it's it's from the financial perspective, but from the enterprises perspective, ah, every company, every business goes to the go to the place that your customer spend the time. 10 years ago maybe website and 5 years ago maybe app. Now you may go to the aging marketplace. So from end of end group or NDT we provided this kind of service to to bring the tech to bring the enterprises the know-how, the skills into Agentic service that agents can find your service through agent marketplace and how to skillize or agentize your business into agent and could be find through the market. So I think it's very important from from from the enterprises prospective they need. to join this kind of the innovation and skills life. They are know-how skills life, their database and make the business into agents and could be find easily find friendly find by other agents. OK, so, ah, Ben, you run a very tight ship on compliance and security, um. So how do you think about AI agents inside that parameter? Um, are AI agents coming to high value payments too? I, um, I, I, I don't know if there's any regulators here, but I just wanna say yes I do run a tight ship, um, but I think, I think the reality of it is that it comes to agents we're all moving away from the pilot phase, so I think a lot of organizations do have some sort of agentech workflow agents if you will, but I think at the end of the day we've never or I personally have never come across a situation where the technology of an agent failed us or rather led to an undesirable outcome. I think at the end of the day it's always around the operating model, the processes, and the compliance, the controls, if you will, and I think the challenge that with Agentech workflows where it's vastly different is if you ask an agent a harness, whatever it is, you ask it an information seeking question. If you answer wrongly, it's not good, but you have an embarrassing moment. If you don't get agentic workflows correct, there are much more vastly scaled impact as that way. And I think that's something at JPMorgan, which we're very intentional about, which is the tone from up top. And I don't mean just the culture of embedding AI. I think that's a given. I think it's actually our intentionality as it pertains to making sure that our infrastructure and processes allow for it. So again, when I use the word infrastructure, people tend to talk about technical infrastructure, data infrastructure. Obviously data has to be clean. Data needs to be in one resort. All those things are given. But even simple things like thinking about, OK, you have 10 different workflows. One of them is agentic, 2 of them are sort of not agentic, semi-aggentic, etc. The whole ecosystem that was mentioned before falls behind and so there's an importance for us to not only get the technology right. The orchestration right and as mentioned before, the governance look, protecting our clients, protecting our clients' wealth, protecting our clients' data is paramount, and I think it's very important that in a gente world all practices of here's a workflow, approve it needs to go away. We're very intentional to have either hired or retrained anyone from legal risk compliance to our technologists to our operations to have a. Workflow by design in all their DNA. So yes, it's automated, but is it explainable? Can you actually be audited? Can you actually explain it? These are all things we've actually gone back. So I think in that context, agentic payment is a very, very important part, but I think it's the journey to help us get to something as high value. All these different steps are things we've done in place to help position ourselves to get there. Mhm. So it sounds to me that uh BNS is. the roads, but Benson JPMorgan is more mindful of the traffic lights. So talking about roads, we're changing gear a little bit. So and has long championed financial inclusion using technology to bring financial services to those previously outside the financial system. In the age of AI, do you see these more technological tools narrowing the access. Um, gap further or will, um, actually, um, technology as some people are worried, uh, actually widen the gap. I think technology is definitely um bridge the gap because yes just as you mentioned, inclusive is our DNA of our business as well and you can imagine that especially JPMorgan is quite it is a private bank and I don't think a lot of people can have their service. Ah, I don't, I cannot say it's expensive, it's reasonable, but a genetic economy aging AI can make this kind of service much more inclusive, much more accessible to to to to people. They are not so wealth, they are, but they still need this kind of service, financial service, insurance service, hair hair care, legal service. They now they can have their agents. They can, they can let their agents uh find the proper service in a very efficient way. Would it be costly for each of us to get an agent? Uh, and I cannot say it's, it's reasonable or less expensive. Because you, you can have your, your service by the agents through the agents. Ah, maybe, maybe in the traditional ways, the service may cost thousands of dollars in a few weeks, in a few weeks, and the result is good. But, ah, but I think normal people maybe not they cannot afford that. They just needed the opinion. They need to just need the information. They just needed the service they can affordable. I think AI can do that. I think so the technology before that. As quite a bridge the difference, bridge the, the, the, the gap. It's it's, it's, we can see, uh, AI and the kind of the, the technology, uh, bring the service, bring the financial services to the normal people. When will the moment arrive when each of us will have our own agent doing all the banking and buying and purchasing and transaction for us? When do you see that day coming? I think it is as soon as possible. I, I believe that. So Benson, AI can make sophisticated insights available to more people, which is another sort of aspect of uh inclusion. But JPMorgan is a private bank. Um, how do you use AI to broaden access without diluting the quality of your service? Thank you. And, and I do wanna, I would agree that our fees are also very reasonable. So, so thank you for that. I I, I think there's a couple of different things. I, I like the analogy, and, and I've always said this before, where the technology is always gonna progress and it should. Innovation should never stop in that way. I think the intentionality around the usage of that technology, how we guard around it is what's really key here. And so for example, a lot of times private equity is something that used to be lack of access. Now it's commoditized, but that doesn't mean that everyone should buy private equity without understanding the checks and balance suitability in that way. And I think as it pertains to financial inclusion, at least from a private bank perspective, that hasn't changed our mentality in that way there. I think the way we look at inclusion as it pertains to clients who need private banking levels of service, I think we've leveraged AI and digital and technology to actually widen people who can engage with us as early as possible. So historically in a lot of private banks, what ends up happening is you have to actually become a client before you get access to a lot of information, get to see what it's like. We've actually recently launched a prospect portal which actually allows people who are not clients yet to actually start having access to our thought leadership, to actually start seeing what it's like in terms of our capabilities, our advice, understanding their portfolio, and that's two things that again for those who want a private bank, they can experience the JPMorgan experience, but equally for those who are not yet but soon to be on their liquidity journey, it's a great access point. I think the second thing I would also say is. The traditional private bank context is you have multi-generational wealth, you have a single decision maker, and usually that single decision maker decides everything. I think with technology and AI, I think the other people and decision makers around that generational wealth, be it the next gen, etc. will have better access. Transparency and ability to get started earlier on the way there. And sorry, last but not least, I would also say that the cost of providing these type of services is going down even though the human element is still there. And so it does allow us to venture to an economic threshold that might be lower than what currently is there, which again includes includes or rather promotes inclusion, but again still ensuring the right guardrails and the right services for our client segments. So the the product you just mentioned, it's like a. Uh, we don't need to be, uh, like ultra high net, uh, I, I think, um, individuals to enjoy absolutely. I think it's, uh, I think it's also by invite only, but I think it's one of those things where instead of relying in the old school pitchbook PowerPoints, PDFs, there's a digital way for people to engage and know what feels what it's like to be a JPMorgan private bank client. I think that's really what people expect nowadays, right? So, uh, whether in the future we'll be dealing with agents or human bankers. I think the task ahead is to build a system that is faster, smarter, more inclusive without losing sight of what makes finance work in the first place, which is trust. Thank you very much. Thank you for this wonderful and insightful conversation. Thank you.

In today’s episode of Fortune Daily, Meta faces a landmark federal trial with states seeking up to $1.4 trillion in damages. Fortune Editorial Director Kristin Stoller takes us into the world of social media rehab and the young patients at the center of the court battle.
Then, we examine Bank of America’s $250 million-a-year bet on GLP-1 weight-loss drugs for employees. Reporter Emma Burleigh explains why companies are weighing the promise of a healthier workforce against the rapidly rising cost of covering drugs like Wegovy and Zepbound.
Finally, we look at Arianna Huffington’s warning that success can become a trap. From CEOs afraid to leave multimillion-dollar roles to founders who feel unmoored after a major exit, we explore why professional achievement does not always translate into fulfillment with Associate Editor, Orianna Rosa Royle.

Algorithm Addiction Rehab

Features

fortunedaily

And we read about young people in particular forging relationships with these bots online. She described it to me as like I'm standing on a cliff watching a tsunami about to come destroy all these houses and no one else can see it but me. Hello from New York. I'm Ellie Austin and you're watching Fortune Daily. So we start the week with the existential white collar question to meet or not to meet? Well, a number of high profile meetings faced collapse, cancellation, and closed door curiosity over the weekend. First up, USCanada trade negotiations failed. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said last minute demands from the US were unfair, and he clapped back with dollar for dollar levies. In California. Meanwhile, the state's Attorney General Rob Bonte canceled a Monday meeting to settle the state's lawsuit blocking the Paramount Warner Brothers. Discovery merger. He accused Paramount of leaking and misrepresenting details in what he called a bad faith maneuver, and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries and Trump adviser Jared Kushner met privately in New York to discuss possible areas of common ground and cooperation. The confab sparked immediate backlash among progressives. From boardrooms to courtrooms. Our next story asks whether social media platforms are facing a reckoning of their own, and what we do know is that Mehta is up against lawsuits from dozens of US states over addictive tech that it is alleged particularly targets young people and children. And coming up, Fortune editorial director Kristen Stoller gives us a look at young users seeking recovery in social media rehab. And as businesses weigh the costs of GLP one access, reporter Emma Burley will break down Bank of America's big bet. Finally, Arianna Huffington says a quote, success trap is leaving leaders in a creativity rough. Associate editor Orellana Rosa Royal shares her reporting on the CEOs who are desperate to quit. Christian, hello, thank you so much for dropping by. Now I mentioned in the introduction to the show that we are seeing states suing Meta right now um over potentially addictive tendencies of their tech and the impact that that tech is having on children and young people in particular, and we'll be watching how those cases evolve, but in the meantime you've written a piece that really dives into the human. Side of this, you went to the country's only standalone rehab center for tech addiction, which I think is just outside of Seattle. Tell us first of all how you learn about this center's existence. Yeah, so my brother is a therapist and for years he has been saying I want to do tech addiction therapy, and he's basically been laughed at by all of. The people in his in his life because everyone says oh that's so niche, you know we have drugs we have gambling, we have pornography addiction, but tech addiction is such a new field um so he told me about this one center that does it in Seattle and so I thought I have to to visit and see what it's about and how easy was it to get access? It was easy to talk to the center's founders. Talking to the, the clients, uh, was a bit more difficult because it, it's embarrass. for a lot of them. They're between the ages of 19 and sometimes it even goes up to 50, and they just are addicted to their phones, their tablets. They can't get off. Now I think any of us would say we have a certain degree of addiction to our phones. I mean, I very much count myself in that category, sadly. This center treats people who reach crisis point. What does crisis point look like? Yeah, so for them, so there's, I spoke to a bunch of them. One of them told me that she had absolutely failed out of school. She would not leave her room. She didn't have friends in the real world. She wasn't eating, showering, sleeping, and I think a lot of them follow the same pattern. They, they just live in this virtual existence. And how old was this? This the woman I spoke with was 21, and typically women is rare. It's typically men at the center, way more men than women. And at what age had she been given her first screen? At 6. So she had her iPad at 6 playing Angry Birds, and from there it just evolved into VR. Well, which you can have a lot of empathy for. I mean these screens are incredibly addictive, and if you're getting it at 6, how does your brain know how to control that? So tell us what happens when a patient arrives at one of these, uh, at this clinic. What happens next? Yeah, so what happens next, it kind of looks like a house really, and there's a bunch of different rooms separated for males and female clients. All their screens are fully taken away, no phone, no iPad. They can use a manual handheld phone, which I think you and I have not used in decades. They can listen to records. They can listen to CDs. TV. There is no TV that I have seen. And they have to go to therapy between 24 and 30 hours a week. It's a mix of individual therapy and group therapy, and it's a lot of time in nature too, because they're right out in Seattle. They're doing a lot more grounding in nature. And what did you learn about parallels between tech addiction and substance addiction? That, that was honestly the most interesting part to me about the piece was that the, the founder of the center, this woman Cosette, she said. You know with tech it's, it's really different because with a drug addiction it's not like I go out into the real world and my friends are talking to me about meth or heroin or I'm at a supermarket and people are selling drugs like with with tech it's constantly in your face you're constantly being presented with it and have to say no. And so she told me, you know, I think of it more as like an eating disorder where food is always going to be a part of your life, but you have to constantly make a choice about how to have a healthy relationship with it. And that's how she looked at tech. It's really hard because at some point presumably you have to reintroduce it in some form, and you mentioned that in the piece that a lot of these clients end up with what we call a dumb phone for a period of time when they transition back into day to day life. Yeah, so, so one of the women I spoke with, Sarah, she had just transitioned to this dumb phone. You get that after about 16 weeks. All. Can do is I think call basic basic text and no access to the internet so she was working at a supermarket, had access to this, but she said the scary part was she found herself scrolling just through screensavers about like what to do because she, her brain just needed something to do like the dopamine exactly and then so she got scared and kind of like put it under her leg when we were talking, but she was like. I am fearful that I could go back to that place. Tell me more about the founder, Cosette and why she felt there was a need for this sort of rehab center. So, she's interesting because she actually worked in tech. She worked outside of Seattle and she found herself, and this was back, I would say late 90s, early 2000s, really spending too much time on it and she was really ahead of the curve and she and her co-founder. Founder thought we need to do something about it. She'd been a social worker. She'd had one case where she'd started to see it, and when she founded the center in 2012, people kind of laughed at her and thought she was crazy. And eventually now she's seeing more and more clients, but it was a real struggle for her at first to to get it up and running. She was really ahead of that curve. Um, how does the introduction. Of AI chatbots influence the work that is going on at this center because I mean we read about young people in particular forging relationships with these bots online. She is so scared about it, the founder of Cosette, she said she kind of, she described it to me as like I'm standing on a cliff watching a tsunami about to come destroy all these houses and no one else can see it but me. It is too early for it at the center though, because I, I went in end of February, early March, and she said usually the diagnosis and treatment is, is years behind the tech. So right now the biggest thing is virtual reality. She predicts that probably in 5 years she'll be treating people who are addicted to AI tech. The biggest addiction point right now is virtual reality, exactly, yes, which, which we think is being a tech from maybe what, like 7 years ago, but it's just caught up that people are caught so. So addicted that they need the help for it. So she predicts that for AI chatbots in 5. Wow. So people are people wearing headsets for their virtual reality addiction? And the woman I spoke to, Sarah, that was her main addiction. She was wearing the virtual reality headset day and night, refused to take it off. Wow, there's an element there of wanting to escape reality, isn't there, drilling down into why you're finding day to day life so difficult. Um, I want to talk a bit about accessibility because you say in the piece that this clinic costs. $1000 a day, yes, which is not accessible to the majority of people who need it. Absolutely not. Is it covered by insurance? Most insurances don't take it, especially because, so tech addiction is not actually a clinical diagnosis. It's not in the DSM, which is the manual that the American Psychological Association uses to diagnose disorders. So without it being a clinical diagnosis, it's really hard to get it covered. Do you have to apply for access to the clinic? You. For access, um, they will typically take anyone that that can pay for it, but it's, it's really difficult to pay for it because you were saying it's about a 16 week treatment for the first part, the first part, yeah, so it could take months at $1000 a day. What did you learn, if anything, about how this type of treatment is going to be made more mainstream? That's the tough part is that this is really the only center in the US. I think half the battle is getting people to believe. That tech addiction is real, which is what these lawsuits are all about. I would say a good majority of the population, and a lot of the sources I spoke with for this story told me that they don't think it's a thing. They think it's overblown, and some even told me that using the words tech addiction is really harmful in and of itself. And why do they say that? They think that, you know, we throw it around, oh, we're addicted to our phones, we're addicted to our phones. They say that's really harmful to people who are actually might be addicted, and b, they just don't think it's an actual addiction. Is there any scientific data on this? What are, what are the scientists saying? The, so it's, it's mixed. A lot of scientists have studied, um, the brain scans of people who say they are addicted to technology, and they're seeing, you know, dopamine triggers like people who are addicted to, to drugs. Um, but there have been some studies done in the UK, especially where people said there's, there's no correlation between the tech and an addiction. So it's, it is really, really mixed, and there are people on both sides of the argument. In the lawsuits that I mentioned at the start of this conversation, states are seeking certain structural changes to the, to these social media platforms, such as limits on engagement, maximizing features like infinite scroll, which is definitely scrolling and stronger age protections. Which changes do the c clinicians that you've spoke to believe would most reduce the people who eventually need this sort of treatment? They first of all to start. They want to follow Australia, follow the UK. So Australia, remind us, Australia put a ban in last year, yes, for they're banning anyone under 16 from using social media, and the UK is due to vote on it, I think, towards the end of this year, but has a similar exactly, they're hoping to reduce it by 2027. So that would be a great start, they're saying. The next thing they would love to do is reduce the algorithms that keep you engaged in the platform, reduce the infinite scroll, reduce the amount of likes, um, they don't. A light counter and then the other thing they want to do is the founder actually of of of the clinic Cosette, she would love to do off hours, dark hours, so flip a switch, you turn it off, you know, after 7 p.m., comes back on at 9 a.m. What incentive do the platforms have to do this because I imagine it would result in their revenue decreasing. That's the problem. They have no incentive and there's no regulation right now in the US that says, you know, you have to do X or Y or Z. I think through the lawsuits hopefully there will be some regulation, but right now that's how they make their money. It's a wild west out there. And finally, what did the young people who you spoke to, Sarah, who you mentioned, what did she attribute her addiction to? Did she blame the platforms? Did she blame her parents? What was her take on how she ended up where she did? They're so smart because they really don't blame the platforms. They don't, they show no hatred for. You know, all our social media platforms, they blame society and what they're saying is we should be taught in schools how to safely use technology because technology is great it's a, it's a tool that's super helpful. Our problem is when it doesn't become a tool, it becomes your life and so they wish there was either regulations to to avoid some of these things we talked about or and or I'd say having teachers teach in school from a very young age here's. You can safely use technology, and here are the signs when you may be veering too far into an unhealthy zone. Kristen, this is fascinating and so important. Thank you so much. Where can people find more of your work? Yes, so they can look unfortune.com. I also am on LinkedIn and Instagram. Next up, Anatomy of the Deal with Emma Burley, who's telling us about how Bank of America is offering up a unique employee perk, GLP1. Hi, I'm Emma Burley. I'm a success reporter, and in a recent story for Fortune, I covered how Bank of America is spending more than $250 million annually covering weight loss drugs for its employees. GLP-1s like Ozempic, Wagobi, and Zebound are now in the mainstream for weight loss purposes, but actually they were originally Intended to help type 2 diabetes patients. Currently, about 10% of Americans are on GLP-1s for weight loss purposes. And even though that production's ramping up, supply is ramping up, a lot of companies are now having to grapple with the constant costs of covering these drugs for their employees. So as many companies have reeled back on this offering, arguing that it's unsustainable to cover these costs indefinitely for workers. Some employers like Bank of America are really making a large investment on this bet. So I found Bank of America's investment to be super interesting because a lot of companies are currently reeling back this benefit. So currently about 60% of employers offer it for just type 2 diabetes, but other companies, around 36%, offer it for weight loss purposes and for type 2. Even though that the availability and the costs of these drugs have come down, a lot of employers have had to rethink about what this means for their long term investment. Some companies like AWC, HDA Healthcare, and Cigna all once offered GLP-1 treatment for its employees, whether it be weight loss reasons or whether it be type 2 diabetes. But now these companies have since rescinded back on the qualifications that it needs to cover GLP-1s. So now many companies aren't even offering it for weight loss purposes anymore. So it was very interesting to hear Bank of America. America's CEO Brian Moynihan talk more about the short-term health impacts that he's seen already and the overall benefit for his workforce. The $250 million yearly investment is quite large, so it's a sizable chunk of what they're spending to make sure that the mental health and the physical health of their employees are up to par. And Moynihan talks about how this is a worthwhile investment, even if in the long term his employees go elsewhere and then they reap the health benefits of GLP-1s later. He still thinks that offering this in the first place makes Bank of America a great place to work. And now, under the radar with Orellana Rosa Royal on the CEO Success Trap. Hi, I'm Orellana Rosa Royal. I run Fortune's success desk and I've recently interviewed the Huffington Post founder, Arianna Huffington. About what life is like when you actually make it to the top, the reality that comes with success, and one surprising takeaway that I came out with from that interview is that success can be a trap. Some of her CEO friends said that they no longer like their jobs, but they're stuck in it. Arianna Huffington built Huffington Post from scratch to this like multi-million dollar media brand. She was, you know, on the cover of Time magazine, and she did that for 11 years and then gave it all up to start again and launch Thrive Global. She has been through burnout, she's been through the highs of like launching your own company. Uh, like one of the biggest digital media newsrooms of its time to leaving it all and starting over. We often assume when people reach a certain level of success that they're happy, that, you know, I'll get that promotion, I'll get that job title, and I'll get the car, I'll get the house, you know, I'll get all these things with it, and I think we often hold out on our own happiness until we reach a certain role. So it's quite jarring to find out that people that get there aren't happy. When we think about CEOs being unhappy or people with a lot of money being unhappy, that we think of golden handcuffs. We think of this idea that, oh, they must have like trapped themselves with a certain lifestyle. They've got this huge salary, so they splashed out on the mortgage, they sent their kids to private school. The thing that Ariana. Hufferton said is much less tangible, but no less real. It's this idea that our identity becomes so enwrapped with our job titles that that's what is making them trapped. It's not the idea that they can't afford to quit. It's this idea that quitting won't just be leaving a paycheck, it'd be leaving a version of themselves, their identity. And that is existential really. I'd say this is absolutely bigger than CEOs. So many people right now are losing their jobs with AI and. If you inflate who you are with that, that could be soul destroying, and I also think it's applicable for everyday people because a lot of people maybe are climbing the ladder thinking once I get this title, I'll be happy, I'll be successful, I'll be this, that and the other, and I think it's a useful like reframe here, you know, it's not about um CEOs being unhappy. It's just the story's not about that, it's about your job title is rented. Your job title might be different tomorrow, so to not conflate your happiness, to not become your title. Your job is something you do, but it's not who you are. That's it for Fortune daily. I'm Ellie Austin, please remember to like, subscribe, and tell us what you thought of today's episode. I'll see you in the comments.

In today’s episode of Fortune Daily, we go beyond the balance sheets to explore human potential, global shifts, and a crisis in a very specialized market (spoiler: it’s cheese!).
First, we are joined by tech mogul Bryan Johnson for a deeply personal conversation. We move past the bio-hacking data to discuss his ultimate quest for longevity, embracing haters, the journey of finding love, and how he thinks he’ll be viewed by future generations.
Next, Fortune’s Asia Editorial Director, Lee Williamson, provides an inside look at Vietnam’s rapid transformation into an economic powerhouse and what this means for the global stage.
Finally, Editor Catherina Gioino reports on a surprising crisis currently impacting the world of cheese banks in Italy.

Additional Footage by Getty.

Bryan Johnson's Quantified Life

Today’s CMO isn’t just selling the brand; they’re responsible for the business, owning revenue, product, and data. At the same time, AI is automating a huge slice of marketing and exposing the metrics that don’t actually move the business. At Cannes Lions, Fortune’s Ruth Umoh sat down with the marketing chiefs of Slack, Zoom, Slalom, and TD Bank U.S. to unpack how AI is reshaping their roles, what they now measure, and how they chase growth.

K Bank

K Bank in Fortune Rankings

K Bank in Fortune Rankings

Videos